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

Re: [widgets-reqs] Comments on http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-reqs-20070209

From: Grassel Guido (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) <guido.grassel@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:27:56 +0300
To: ext Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>, Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C25E96BC.15BA6%guido.grassel@nokia.com>

Marcos, WG,


On 5/2/07 7:53 AM, "ext Marcos Caceres" <m.caceres@qut.edu.au> wrote:

> Our experience is that HTML+CSS-based widgets are in fact HTML
> documents and not "programs" (by program I assume you means something
> like a Windows .exe that may have some arbitrary
> inaccessible/unprintable representation). If a widget is created using
> HTML+CSS, then it is the author making the aesthetic choice of making
> the widget look and feel like a program. In such a case, I would argue
> that is up to an author to decide how device-independent they want
> their widget to be as there is no reason not to include, for instance,
> a print style-sheet that makes the widget printable. If, as in most
> cases, a widget is really just a small HTML document that is scripted
> to respond to events and otherwise manipulate the DOM tree, then there
> is no reason why a widget cannot be printed or otherwise made as
> device independent as any other HTML+CSS document.
> 
> Regardless, you make an important point which needs further feedback
> from the community:
> 
> * should the widget specification recommend a UIDL?
> * If yes, should it be HTML+CSS? What happens if a vendor does not
> support HTML+CSS?
> 
Would it really help if the spec recommended HTML+CSS+JavaScript ?
Pro:
- The W3C might argue that a W3C spec should give direction to the industry
and promote other W3C specs.

Cons:
- We know of at least one popular Widget run-time that uses its own UIML.
- We all know too well that different browser engines utilized by
commercially available Widget run-times support various versions of HTML,
JavaScript, DOM and to a various extend. Or how would you described the
situation with IE, Mozila, Opera and WebKit engines ...
- I see a lot of benefit of XBL2 for Widgets, but are we ready to recommend
XBL2 in widget 1.0 ? - I am not sure?

Regards
- Guido 

> [1] http://www.w3.org/2007/04/17-waf-minutes.html
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/Overview.html
> 

-----
Guido Grassel, Nokia Research Center, guido.grassel@nokia.com
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2007 16:52:21 GMT

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