W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > November 2006

Re: [Widgets] Autodiscovery

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:50:45 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0611261750g4134a4e6qb56081fca3c8e4d@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Cc: public-appformats@w3.org

I think that "alternate" makes sense in some cases, but agree it
shouldn't be required.  e.g. a weather widget linked from a weather
service, or a stock quote widget from a stock quote service.
rel="alternate widget" would be ideal in those situations.

Mark.

On 11/24/06, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>    The current draft defines that rel="alternate" should be used for
> autodiscovery of widgets [1].  I think that is a mistake because a
> widget isn't necessarily an alternate representation of the document.
> In fact, in most cases, it won't be.  Consider a site like Apple's
> Dashboard widget download page [2], which lists many widgets for
> download, none of which are alternatives of that page.
>
> I propose that a new "widget" value be defined for that purpose instead.
>
> <link rel="widget" type="application/widget"
>        href="/example.widget" title="An Example Widget">
>
> I also think the value should be allowed on <a> elements as well, and
> autodiscovery should work for such links.  Since authors are usually
> going to include a link to the widget somewhere in the page, it's
> redundant to require that each one also be specified
>
> <a href="/example.widget" rel="widget">An Example Widget</a>
>
> The value also makes the use of the type attribute optional, since UAs
> can just recognise the widget value.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-widgets-20061109/#autodiscovery
> [2] http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/
>
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
> http://lachy.id.au/
>
>
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 01:50:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:20 GMT