On Sun, 17 Aug 2014, at 10:54, Daniel Friesen wrote:
On 2014-08-16, 4:56 PM, Yuvi Panda wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:40 AM, svetlana svetlana@fastmail.com.au wrote:
Why not use in-browser offline storage? http://www.html5rocks.com/en/features/storage
One of my favorite articles: http://alistapart.com/article/application-cache-is-a-douchebag
On 2014-08-16, 5:15 PM, svetlana wrote:
... That is OK, you and Yuvi Panda highlighted some important points. Thanks to both - I'll follow-up if I find solution to the application cache issues raised in the blog post linked earlier.
svetlana
Issues? The article is one of my favourites too, if you read through the whole thing it describes a technique of combining appcache, localStorage, and an iframe to make it possible for a site like Wikipedia to be made to work offline. And localStorage could even be substituted for IndexedDB (with a polyfill for WebSQL only browsers).
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]
Could someone please tell me why I'm getting two different threads with this subject in my inbox? I have trouble following.
Thought that your point is that offline storage in browser is hard, and that's /why/ mobile apps exist. It's really hard to discuss this by email.
svetlana