"Why the website doesn't work without an internet connection?"

Stupidest client ever!!!

Actually, you can make available offline using service workers. Check about Progressive Web Applications (PWA).

So if you’re paid to make it work offline, what’s your point then?

@rdricco you don’t need a pwa to use service workers and vice versa. Pwa doesn’t have to employ service workers too

@uyouthe If you want your PWA properly implemented, you will need service workers.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US...

@rdricco no :) pwa can be online only. I make them on daily basis and I even created pwagym.com

@rdricco pwa is just a website with pwa manifest. That’s it. That’s enough for it to be a pwa

@uyouthe Are you sure you read the mdn article? Also, if your pwas are not available offline, you doing wrong on a daily basis.

@rdricco you’re just wrong.

@uyouthe So MDN is wrong and you are right. Cool.

@rdricco I was wrong. You actually need them. I thought you only need https and a manifest.

I apologize

@zavr sorry it on a wrong knowledge cloud. Learn again small boi

@rdricco ur also wrong.

Sigh. PWA is such a flexible term. Get your fucking knowledge straight.

PWA is a term used to determine web applications whose are kind of like apps.

This does not include how close your web implementation comes to native. It does not include service workers per se, it’s supportive to make the app run better, but not required.

There are native apps who can only be used online, but also apps who only work offline and there are apps that do both, like Spotify, basically.

Same goes for PWA’s. This rant is cursed. Besides, the ranter was about websites.

Websites can also use service workers, but just because they do, doesn’t make them a PWA.

A normal website is always online and if an Client wants it to work offline, it’s not a typical website anymore and requirements must change.

DID ANY WEBSITE PRE 2000 BEEN OFFLINE ABLE? NO! A WEBSITE IS A COLLECTION OF DOCUMENTS TO FETCH AND THIS TERMINOLOGY DID NOT CHANGE. Ducking stupid. You guys make me so sad.

@010001111 ehm, no. Pwa is a very specific thing. It’s a website served over https that has a service worker and a valid pwa manifest

@uyouthe Yes but actually no. Quoted from Googles web.dev’s Core PWA Checklist:

> When users are offline, keeping them in your PWA provides a more seamless and native-like experience than dropping back to the default browser offline page.

As well as

> Users who install or add apps to their device tend to engage with those apps more

Both of which is pretty much Marketing talk. I had a few instances so far where they only wanted a shortcut on their desktop, because they regularly bought wine, but they didn’t need to have it work on mobile well. And scrolling through an large collection and an twice a day updated blog wouldn’t make much sense for them when offline. So we ditched the service workers, who cared about an “oops you’re offline and can’t shop right now!”? Nobody, it would have just cost us money to implement, just to fulfill the “oFFiCaL dEfInItIon”.

It felt just like a desktop app. we just didn’t had to scope the mobile users because that would not also mean responsiveness, but also acknowledgement for their dedicated devices. Android and Apple come closer everyday, but I’m afraid they will always have their own ways to do things and handle certain scenarios differently. This takes a lot of time and effort to do right and optimize for.

And on the other hand, we also had instances where they didn’t need to install an app, because they have been redirected from another community (aka. partners as this was only a middleman) but we needed to have service workers due to better caching performance, because we couldn’t pre-determine how long certain resources will be up-to-date and fetching them new without actually knowing if they changed also would have cost precious loading time.

So technically you may be right, but just because you didn’t do one thing doesn’t mean it’s completely wrong. It all depends on what your customers needs and is willing to pay. It doesn’t inherently mean they don’t strive for the best they can, within reason.

@010001111 I'm using the MDN definition on this rant, there is a link on one of my replies. You can check:

"In order to call a Web App a PWA, technically speaking it should have the following features: Secure contexts (HTTPS), one or more Service Workers, and a manifest file."

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US...

Here you can check the offline, update and other features given by service workers:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US...

Men, you know you don't have to shove your opinion down the throat of others...

That being said it was on 2005...

@jotamontecino

"That being said it was on 2005"

This is a very relevant information that invalidates my first reply. Context is very important, think about that on your next thread.

@rdricco you should think about it. I wasn't the one to do invalid assertions.

@rdricco Watch the words. “Technicially it SHOULD”, not “MUST”.

There is a reason why the official w3c specs are using a definitive explanation when to use SHOULD, MUST, MAY, etc.. And I didn’t speak against you, so your opinion is at a wrong place.

What I’ve told was real-wold experience backed by members of this community who experienced likewise.

Additionally, you can get your knowledge from wherever you want. What I wanted to mention now is that the technical definition on how browsers shall implement those features are in large done by Google and Microsoft. Only one person from Firefox, one from Intel and one *representative* - working for Microsoft but acting in the interest of Samsung did editorial changes. And those were small details

So I’d argue about MDN’s somewhat dull introduction to the tech, besides, it’s in a draft for years now. Google is regularly updating their documentation and many do look at those

But you do you