I did add an 'origin' field because that makes it easier to mirror the
manifest. in Mozilla's format, the authorative manifest file should be
hosted on the app's origin.
For now, i'm using apps.unhosted.org as a source for the 'install
default apps' button in owncloud. For now, the manifests are only
available there, but the idea is that the respective app developers
would also start hosting their apps on their app origin. All of that
is a bit futile though if it's a http origin instead of https.
One interesting point that came up is that I decided to put the
permission scopes of remotestorage modules at the same level as those
of device functionality exposed by Firefox OS.
So "this app wants access to your calendar" then becomes a
technology-independent statement. That could then be the device
calendar (via Firefox OS), or the remotestorage calendar (via
remoteStorage.calendar).
There are three modules that probably overlap with the permission
scopes that Mozilla are using so far: contacts, calendar, and
webapps-manage. I'm still calling the apps module 'apps' and not
'webapps-manage' for now, because we said we don't want to use module
names with hyphens in them. So we have to see how that works out.
I'm curious what other people think of this, particularly people from
5apps and Surfnet, because they're both already working with app
manifest formats.
> I did add an 'origin' field because that makes it easier to mirror the
> manifest. in Mozilla's format, the authorative manifest file should be
> hosted on the app's origin.
> For now, i'm using apps.unhosted.org as a source for the 'install
> default apps' button in owncloud. For now, the manifests are only
> available there, but the idea is that the respective app developers
> would also start hosting their apps on their app origin. All of that
> is a bit futile though if it's a http origin instead of https.
> One interesting point that came up is that I decided to put the
> permission scopes of remotestorage modules at the same level as those
> of device functionality exposed by Firefox OS.
> So "this app wants access to your calendar" then becomes a
> technology-independent statement. That could then be the device
> calendar (via Firefox OS), or the remotestorage calendar (via
> remoteStorage.calendar).
> There are three modules that probably overlap with the permission
> scopes that Mozilla are using so far: contacts, calendar, and
> webapps-manage. I'm still calling the apps module 'apps' and not
> 'webapps-manage' for now, because we said we don't want to use module
> names with hyphens in them. So we have to see how that works out.
> I'm curious what other people think of this, particularly people from
> 5apps and Surfnet, because they're both already working with app
> manifest formats.
Looks cool!
CC'ing public-webappstore group as they were looking at some similar things
(manifests etc.)...
> I did add an 'origin' field because that makes it easier to mirror the
> manifest. in Mozilla's format, the authorative manifest file should be
> hosted on the app's origin.
> For now, i'm using apps.unhosted.org as a source for the 'install
> default apps' button in owncloud. For now, the manifests are only
> available there, but the idea is that the respective app developers
> would also start hosting their apps on their app origin. All of that
> is a bit futile though if it's a http origin instead of https.
> One interesting point that came up is that I decided to put the
> permission scopes of remotestorage modules at the same level as those
> of device functionality exposed by Firefox OS.
> So "this app wants access to your calendar" then becomes a
> technology-independent statement. That could then be the device
> calendar (via Firefox OS), or the remotestorage calendar (via
> remoteStorage.calendar).
> There are three modules that probably overlap with the permission
> scopes that Mozilla are using so far: contacts, calendar, and
> webapps-manage. I'm still calling the apps module 'apps' and not
> 'webapps-manage' for now, because we said we don't want to use module
> names with hyphens in them. So we have to see how that works out.
> I'm curious what other people think of this, particularly people from
> 5apps and Surfnet, because they're both already working with app
> manifest formats.
On a general note, there seems to be about a dozen different efforts to
create app stores, app showcases etc. e.g. just among browser
manufacturers alone you have mozilla apps, chrome apps and I think opera
has an app store too!
The user then has the issue, of having to navigate between different
stores, which can often be confusing.
Do you think it might be feasible one day, to merge some of these efforts
onto 'the web' itself?
