W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Widgets - WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:23:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4C924469.5070801@opera.com>
To: nathan@webr3.org
CC: "Nilsson, Claes1" <Claes1.Nilsson@sonyericsson.com>, "Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com" <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>


On 9/16/10 6:10 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
>>> cc: public-webapps
>>>
>>> Hi Claes,
>>>
>>> Nilsson, Claes1 wrote:
>>>> Hi Nathan,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for clarifying your proposal.
>>>>
>>>> I interpret you so that you are proposing standardization of a general
>>>> concept of "packaged and installed web applications". Something like
>>>> http://code.google.com/chrome/apps/docs/index.html plus additional
>>>> features
>>>> from widgets specifications.
>>>>
>>>> This is something that can have a value by several reasons, for
>>>> example:
>>>> * Whole application package or only manifest/configuration file
>>>> could be
>>>> digitally signed.
>>>> * Permission to use APIs could be given at installation time.
>>>> * Manifest/configuration file could define network access limitations.
>>>> * Web application marketing/deployment/charging advantages.
>>>> I agree that the specifications you mention are applicable for a
>>>> general
>>>> concept of "packaged and installed web applications" but I believe that
>>>> currently most people have the view that "widgets" are "packaged and
>>>> installed web applications" that run small "live" applications on
>>>> the home
>>>> screen. However, what does the widgets specifications actually say? I
>>>> haven't digged into the documents in detail but are they not already
>>>> enabling a general concept of "packaged and installed web
>>>> applications"?
>>>> So far there has been a distinction between "browser", running dynamic
>>>> content on web sites and "widget user agent", running installed web
>>>> widgets.
>>>> Reading you original mail in this thread you say:
>>>> " Simply wondering why WARP, Widgets Updates and Digital Signatures
>>>> aren't
>>>> used to deploy js applications which run in the main browser context?".
>>>>
>>>> So, what are you actually proposing?
>>>>
>>>> * Update to HTML5 to support "packaged and installed web
>>>> applications" in
>>>> the "main browser context"?
>>>> Plus
>>>> * Updates to the Widgets specifications to enable the more general
>>>> concept
>>>> of "packaged and installed web applications"?
>>> I'm proposing something before that, to consider whether "packaged and
>>> installed web applications" should be considered and if it would be
>>> viable +
>>> gain support from the main browser vendors, then to look at exactly
>>> how. I'd
>>> loosely suggest that the work done on the Widgets specifications
>>> could be
>>> re-used, forked or even that the Widgets specifications were
>>> re-scoped to
>>> general client side web applications and aligned with the other work
>>> being
>>> done within web-apps, html5 and device-apis. Ultimately it just
>>> seemed to me
>>> like much of the heavy lifting has already been done under the banner of
>>> widgets.
>>
>> I thought that is what we had done already? I don't get it.
>>
>>>> Furthermore, do we really want "packaged and installed web
>>>> applications"
>>>> to run by the same user agent, i.e. the normal browser as normal
>>>> website
>>>> based web applications? We may want to have different "user agent
>>>> chromes"
>>>> depending on type of web application.
>>> Personally, yes, being able to make applications using a suite of
>>> standardized languages and APIs with near universal deployment on a
>>> core set
>>> of rapidly evolving runtimes, really, really, appeals :) I wouldn't
>>> suggest
>>> that the scope be limited to user agent (ie browser vendors) only,
>>> but they
>>> are the obvious target for most applications in the first instance.
>>
>> As above. I thought that was what we (Web Apps WG - Widgets) have been
>> doing for the last 5 years?
>
> Maybe I've missed part of the specifications - are you telling me that I
> can package up an HTML,CSS,JS based application as per the widgets
> specification, include a WARP, Digital Signature, set the view-mode to
> windowed and that this will run as is, in the main browser context of
> the main browser vendors (Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, IE etc)?

Ah! ok. I get it now. No, that won't work right now (actually, that's 
how we run them in our development environment for testing purposes :) 
). But that is trivial and no one has really asked for that.

I'm still a bit lost as to what the use case is?


-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 16:23:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:13 GMT