W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-appformats@w3.org > August 2007

Re: [Widgets 1.0] Automatic Updates (1.0)?

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:27:06 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670708302327r2415b91ena73a88010ff56155@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>

Hi Mark,

On 8/30/07, Mark Nottingham <mnot@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:
> You shouldn't need to extend HTTP at all for this use case; use the
> URI, look at the ETag, Last-Modified, If-None-Match and If-Modified-
> Since headers, along with the 304 response. Also, please recommend
> that responses be cacheable for some reasonable amount of time (e.g.,
> Cache-Control: max-age=3600).

Good point. However, I need to investigate the implications (if any)
of dynamically generated widgets and widgets sent over HTTPS. Do you
see any potential issues? I'll try to write up a model based around
Etags and related HTTP1.1 caching controls next week and see if there
is any need for a separate spec for auto-updates at all. Regardless,
given your knowledge of caching, any further input are appreciated.

> Also, is the indirection of a manifest really necessary? Why not just
> have them periodically poll the archive of the widget itself?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "the indirection of a
manifest". Can you please explain what you mean by the above a bit
more.

Also, one cannot assume that a widget was always acquired directly
from a web server: it might be the case that an end-user sends a
widget to another end-user, say, over Bluetooth. Those widgets should
still be able to connect back to their point origin and check if an
update is needed.

Kind reagards,
Marcos

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 06:27:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:10:22 GMT