W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [widgets] MWBP WG Comments of Widgets Reqs LC WD, was Re: Request for Comments on Widgets 1.0 Requirements Last Call WD

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2008 07:21:39 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670809042321i5a21c32ch439d8f33ca82a276@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sullivan, Bryan" <BS3131@att.com>
Cc: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>, "Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG" <public-bpwg@w3.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi Bryan,

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
> I was starting to respond and thank you for the inclusion in the previous email when I saw this... having been out for vacation etc I did not get a chance to respond earlier.

Yeah... as you know, I did include the requirements in the
Requirements doc, but I was overruled by the working group and the
consensus was reached to remove them.

> I would like the opportunity to discuss these in detail and support the rationale on the Widgets call. I don't understand the justification for rejection you have described. Overall the requirements represent the core (a limited set) of some pragmatic considerations that will affect the success of widget frameworks in real-world deployments, especially in the mobile device context.
> As you stated: "The main reason for rejecting the feedback was that the proposed requirements were: (a) had limited impact on the actual specs (in normative terms),  (b) were overly prescriptive and should really be left as an implementation detail on which implementations can compete, (c) added complexity on either the client side or the server side."
> (a) Is unclear (which specs are you talking about?). The Widget Requirements spec is the one being commented on, and it is giving direction to "conforming specification" writers (presumably in W3C and externally). Several of the proposed additions were written in normative terms and meant to be so.

At the top of the Widget Requirements document, I list the specs that
make up the "Widgets 1.0: Family of Specifications". Those are the
specifications that, possibly in conjunction with other W3C or
external standards, will collectively address the requirements.

During our August 14 teleconf [1], the Working Group reached consensus
that we could not address the requirements within the specs we are
producing or we disagreed with the requirement.  Please refer to the
teleconf minutes [1].

> (b) In which cases were they overly prescriptive. This seems to me to be a value judgment based upon some criteria. The criteria I use is whether there will be significant negative effects on usability, interoperability, or efficiency if the requirements are not supported. Especially in the mobile case, the normative requirements I proposed can be supported in one or more of those terms.

Again, it's not that we disagree with the requirements. It's just that
some of them where prescriptive of technologies that the working group
did not believe actually addressed the requirement (eg. CC/PP, etc.)

> (c) Re complexity, little of value comes free. But overall I don't think any of the proposed normative requirements could reasonably be called complex. I am willing to explain why if given the opportunity.

We welcome all feedback and I'm personally happy to continue
discussing any issues further. However, please be mindful that the
working group is on a very tight deadline for these specifications
(October's TPAC) and we would like to get MWBP's working group's
approval or formal objections (if any) ASAP so we can move the
Requirements forward along the publication track. If possible, we
would really appriciate a formal response on behalf of MWBP by the end
of next week.

Kind regards,

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0417.html
Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 5 September 2008 06:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC