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

[widgets-reqs] re: Advanced Widget libraries (comment 28) (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 14:58:23 +1000
Message-ID: <b21a10670705012158r239b9481t4aee7940ef1f88b7@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].

>   R28. ECMAScript Compatibility
>
> COMMENT 28) (See also comment 11.) ECMAScript is a relatively well-known
> language among Web developers, so it makes some sense to select it as
> the standard widget language. On the other hand, it is far less
> developed than, e.g., Python, Ruby or Java. It has a well-developed
> library for handling HTML, but it has no file handling, no sockets,
> little math, no color management, no encryption and compression
> libraries, no forks, threads and semaphores, no time and date
> libraries...
>
> Does the WAF WG expect such libraries to be added (or to add them
> itself)?

Although those libraries would undoubtedly be tremendously useful, we
have no expectation to write/spec such libraries... perhaps they are
more in the domain of the WebAPI WG?

Some HTML-based widgets at least have shown themselves to be quite
functional without the need of such libraries. Vendors, of course,
would be free to support such libraries but at the risk of
incompatibility (and many already do in respect to file-IO, sockets,
compression, graphic manipulation, etc). How we will consolidate such
variations in programmatic functionality in the spec is still an open
issue.

-- 
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 04:58:26 GMT

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