tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-664175667937540078.post7846343861949413598..comments2009-10-01T22:53:19.811+02:00Tomeu Vizosohttps://profiles.google.com/105446846339629686466noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-664175667937540078.post-30370078381868568242009-10-01T22:53:19.811+02:002009-10-01T22:53:19.811+02:00The main reason I can imagine for using Gears over HTML5 offline is that the latter imposes a 5MB per domain storage limitation. That may be enough, but I&#39;m not aware of any such limit in Gears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-664175667937540078.post-76425884358427398112009-05-31T20:48:30.420+02:002009-05-31T20:48:30.420+02:00&gt; Instead of using Google Gears, why not promote HTML 5&#39;s offline storage?<br /><br />Yeah, the plan is to promote the standard APIs but many apps out there are still depending on Gears.<br /><br />Personally, I just did this work to make sure that we have written somewhere the steps to make an extension work in Browse.Tomeu Vizosohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16626407169435386757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-664175667937540078.post-83075739287270835632009-05-31T20:43:32.865+02:002009-05-31T20:43:32.865+02:00Instead of using Google Gears, why not promote HTML 5's offline storage? It is a feature of Firefox 3.5, which I assume will be on the OLPC soon. No plugin reuqired, and it's a web standard.Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07986308516429741062noreply@blogger.com