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

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 Caceres
Received on Friday, 31 August 2007 06:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:50:07 UTC