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

One approach to take with this issue is that the Widgets spec itself is
UIML-independent but there is an appendix or separate document that defines
a particular profile of Widgets that requires particular versions of
HTML+CSS+etc. These profiles greatly promote the ability of content
developers to achieve write-once, run-anywhere, which provides great
efficiencies to the industry. The CDF WG is taking an approach like this.
It has a generic CDF specification [1] that talks about compound document
issues independent of any particular markup language. It also defines two
profiles, WICD Mobile [2] and WICD Full [3], that specify particular
combinations of HTML, ECMAScript, CSS, DOM, and SVG.

I strongly encourage a profile that aligns well with WebKit's and/or
Mozilla's support for W3C standards. This would allow leverage of all of
the existing Ajax industry for developing widgets. Regarding any vendors
that have proprietary UIMLs, they can author their own profiles.

[1] Compound Documents By Reference -
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-CDR-20061122/
[2] WICD Mobile - http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WICDMobile-20061122/
[3] WICD Full - http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WICDFull-20061122/

Jon

Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Web Architect, Emerging Technologies
IBM, Menlo Park, CA
Mobile: +1-650-926-5865



                                                                           
             "Grassel Guido                                                
             (Nokia-NRC/Helsin                                             
             ki)"                                                       To 
             <guido.grassel@no         ext Marcos Caceres                  
             kia.com>                  <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>, Bert Bos    
             Sent by:                  <bert@w3.org>, "WAF WG (public)"    
             public-appformats         <public-appformats@w3.org>          
             -request@w3.org                                            cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
             05/02/2007 09:27          Re: [widgets-reqs] Comments on      
             AM                        http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widget 
                                       s-reqs-20070209                     
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





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