W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Widget Packaging and configuration LC review

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:46:04 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670904030146u1d647ff4ra6a405e8042898b8@mail.gmail.com>
To: SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Benoit,

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:13 AM, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS
<benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> Marcos,
> I’ve read through your feedback and agree on it for all the elements that
> I’ve not included in this message.
> I guess now we’re left with the discussion on the Mode apart from those last
> comments in red in the following exchange:
>
>
> Benoit  Suzanne
> Widget Factory Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
> benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Marcos CACERES <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 09:21:07 +0100
> To: Benoit SUZANNE <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, Web Applications
> Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Widget Packaging and configuration LC review
>
> Hi Benoit,
> Inline comments below. For the sake of the LC disposition of comments,
> please be sure to indicate if you are satisfied with the changes I have
> made....
>
> On 1/20/09 8:50 PM, "SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS"
> <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>> Here are some comments on the Jan 17th draft:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.5 Global Definitions
>> There are some misplaced quotes that could be deleted and I propose the
>> more
>> generic formulation:
>> The [Widgets-Landscape] defines a widget as an end-user's
>> conceptualization of
>> an interactive single purpose application for displaying and/or updating
>> local
>> data or data on the Web, packaged in a way to allow a single download and
>> installation on a user's machine, mobile phone, or any Internet-enabled
>> device. Because widgets are packaged, they can be liberally shared by
>> users
>> without relying on [HTTP] (i.e., users can share widgets over Bluetooth or
>> through other distribution channels).
>>
>
> Fixed.
>
> I find the wording: “any Internet-enabled device” wider then the “any
> Internet-enabled mobile device”

Better, fixed.

>> A User Agent is the runtime environment in which a widget runs. It is also
>> known as a widget engine.
>
> That definition of user agent is not broad enough to encompass conformance
> checkers. The definition you suggested is already covered by "widget user
> agent".

A conformance checker is a separate class of product (which extends
user agent):

"A conformance checker (CC) is a user agent that verifies that a
widget package and a configuration document, if present, conforms to
this specification.This specification defines the expected behavior of
conformance checkers in sections marked as conformance checker
behavior throughout this document."

> That’s fine, but it needs to be referenced in this section even if it is to
> point to the right section, as thi section should list all the difinitions
> of this document.

Ok, I need to review which definitions are global or not. I prefer to
keep thing the way they are at the moment.

>
>> 6.7 Custom Icons and Default Icons
>> An icon must be located either at the root of the widget or in the root of
>> the
>> language folder.
>> Same distinction as in section 6
>
> Fixed
> I still see this uncorrected in the 5.8 section, it should read if I’m
> correct “... Or at the root of the

Bah! sorry about that. I thought I'd fixed it. Fixed for real this time :)

>> A default icon must be located either at the root of the widget or in the
>> root
>> of the language folder.
>> Same distinction as in section 6
>
> Fixed
> I still see this uncorrected in the 5.8 section

fixed.



-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 3 April 2009 08:48:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT