Re: [widgets] Automatic updates attempt 2

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote:
> On 2008-05-28 11:25:03 +0200, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
>
>> 1. In the case that any security-related settings for the widget
>> changes, they can be reviewed automatically, or optionally
>> manually by the user, and download of an updated resource can be
>> prevented if the updated version is not acceptable.  This is
>> particularily important on slow connections, since some widgets
>> run into the megabyte range
>
> This goes back full-circle to the question whether the
> metainformation (including signature and capabilities) should be
> within the zip archive, or in a separate outside file.
>
> My gut feeling is that the update descriptor is going to end up
> looking *very* similar to the manifest, in the end of the day.

I disagree. There is only a tiny bit of overlap that is needed to do
the version and ID comparison.

> I'm ultimately indifferent as to whether that description file
> should be inside or outside the widget; I'd just prefer us to avoid
> duplication of information there.

So would I.


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