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

[widgets-reqs] re: widget metadata fields (comment 15) (was: Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209)

From: Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:56:52 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670705012156p708cef97pad56c1a04d0c5bb9@mail.gmail.com>
To: bert@w3.org, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>

This is a response to Bert Bos' review [1] of the Widgets 1.0
Requirements document [2].

> COMMENT 15) I think authors like to have a clear place for author, date
> and copyright (as shown by JavaDoc, e.g.), but to call it a requirement
> to provide that space goes a bit too far.

I don't understand why this is going too far? In terms of metadata,
there is also a lot of variation in what widget vendors ask their
developers to provide. We want to standardise this based on industry
best practices (like JavaDoc) and also address the needs of
developers. The requirement is not meant to imply that it is mandatory
that a developer actually provide those details for a widget. So,
unless I've misunderstood your point, from my perspective I really
don't see why giving developers a set of elements in which to record
information about the widget is going too far?

> Maybe it should be a requirement that the widget package has space for
> free-form comments, e.g., a README file.

I have modified R12 to read: "This metadata may include details like
the name, email, and IRI of the author(s) that created the widget or
even a free-form comment container where an author can include, for
example, something similar to a 'README' file".

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Feb/0131.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209/
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 04:56:59 GMT

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