W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-and-tv@w3.org > February 2012

[profile] Widget VS Offline apps

From: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:18:20 +0100
To: "Vickers, Mark" <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>, "Scott Wilson" <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG" <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.v9auoufm6ugkrk@giuseppep-x220>
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:44:02 +0100, Scott Wilson  
<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. Widgets: I don't support the TV Profile mandating ("shall support")  
>> W3C Widgets because widgets don't have sufficient  
>> cross-device/cross-browser support.

There are several conformant widgets implementations

and a test suite is available, so the spec is mature enough for deployment.

>> The HTML5 Offline Web applications requirements are sufficient for our  
>> needs.

Widgets cover use cases that offline apps do not cover (e.g. single  
So if you are looking for a packaging format you need something like  

> On the other hand, proprietary mechanisms for distributing web  
> applications cause unnecessary barriers to interoperability which  
> Widgets can help overcome.

Furthermore other TV groups have adopted widgets as packaging format.

> In the TV space, several smart TV platforms have already produced  
> proprietary incompatible "zip with an XML manifest" specs.
> As an example, in the mobile space PhoneGap Build uses W3C Widgets as  
> its packaging format lingua franca on input, and then generates  
> proprietary application wrappers for the target platforms.
> hHowever wording that makes a distinction between requirements for  
> packaged web applications for TV vs websites may help.

Would changing SHALL in SHOULD address your concern?

What do other people think about this?

Giuseppe Pascale
TV & Connected Devices
Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 08:21:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:44:06 UTC