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

RE: [profile] Widget VS Offline apps

From: Jan Lindquist <jan.lindquist@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:32:02 +0100
To: Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com>, "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: <82276AE38FD87A4C9CF6C820AC5276EA36D0EA39D6@ESESSCMS0362.eemea.ericsson.se>
Hello Giuseppe,

The support of widgets "should" be in the profile since it is used by other standard groups. The profile would not be representative of the industry if it were to be excluded. As you point out there are cases in which even HTML5 Offline Web applications requirements is not sufficient.

Best Regards,
JanL 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Giuseppe Pascale [mailto:giuseppep@opera.com] 
> Sent: den 7 februari 2012 09:18
> To: Vickers, Mark; Scott Wilson
> Cc: public-web-and-tv@w3.org WG
> Subject: [profile] Widget VS Offline apps
> 
> 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 
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/
> 
> 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 download).
> So if you are looking for a packaging format you need 
> something like widgets.
> 
> >
> > On the other hand, proprietary mechanisms for distributing web 
> > applications cause unnecessary barriers to interoperability which 
> > Widgets can help overcome.
> 
> agree
> 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.
> >
> 
> @Mark
> Would changing SHALL in SHOULD address your concern?
> 
> What do other people think about this?
> 
> /g
> -- 
> Giuseppe Pascale
> TV & Connected Devices
> Opera Software
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 08:35:40 UTC

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