incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Android] window.history vs navigator.app.history
Date Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:31:27 GMT
OK, I think we should make sure that window.history.go(-1) actually
works. I'm finding that it has weird results on mobile-spec, and I'm
investigating it now.

Joe

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> Yep sounds like a great deprecation candidate.
>
> On 9/19/12 11:50 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdonald@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Why don't we switch back to using web history as the default for 2.2
>>but leave the old code in for now. We can deprecate it for removal in
>>5-6 months. That way people who are using the old way can still enable
>>it in their apps and they have time to make the switch.
>>
>>Simon Mac Donald
>>http://hi.im/simonmacdonald
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hey
>>>
>>> There seems to be a lot of confusion as to how web history should
>>> work, how it works now and what people should be doing with web
>>> history.  Currently, we have two web history APIs.  One of which is
>>> the shim that was put in to get around the old URI error, and the
>>> other is the web browser history.  For some reason, we're still using
>>> the shim instead of the web browser history by default because it
>>> works better with the apps that have already been deployed.  However,
>>> I would like to see web history adopted because of the following
>>> reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Consistency across browser
>>> 2. Fixes issues with iFrames on Android
>>> 3. Work-around no longer fixes the issue for 3.x and 4.0.x, since a
>>> fix for the hash and param problem was merged back in 1.9.0
>>>
>>> That being said, it's entirely possible that we're doing something
>>> wrong with web history as it is, and based on the recent feedback from
>>> people who don't understand how open source works (public mail good,
>>> private mail bad), I think we should bring this up again.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Joe
>

Mime
View raw message