- From: Gorm Haug Eriksen <gormer@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 12:52:10 +0100
- To: "Marcos Caceres" <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>, "Ed Voas" <voas@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:44:23 +0100, Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au> wrote: > I also agree with Ed in relation to the root node maybe being called > something other than <widget> (for the sake of accommodating all > vendors). Some alternative names off the top of my head: > > * <application>, or > * <component>, or > * <about>, or > * <manifest>, or > * <metadata>, or > * <configuration> > > Anyone else got any suggestions? Yea, widget isn't a good name. Perhaps <config> since the file is called config.xml? > Given that the Widgets 1.0 is based on Opera's config format for their > widgets, I cannot comment as to why or how Opera uses <width> and > <height>. They are used for the initial width and height of the window. Personally, I think we should have used CSS styling to determine aspect. I agree with Ed that it shouldn't be part of the format. Other comments: - <widgetname> should be renamed to <name> - should support multiple authors - the security tag should be dropped or reviewed - should not require that a widget is packaged at the root of the zip file - The Widget Scripting Interfaces should be dropped or reviewed. In particular, the geometry methods since this wouldn't make sense on some widget runners - should mention a XML NS for the format - should mention a strategy for both embedding the config information inside the widget and reference the config information from the widget Regards, - Gorm Haug Eriksen
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 11:52:41 UTC