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

Re: [widgets] Comments to <access> element text

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:15:12 -0400
Message-Id: <C146E57F-DCAB-40E9-88DD-3F2F18B97C6F@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: Bryan Sullivan <BS3131@att.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
I added the 'duration' attribute to the Widgets V2 Feature List:

  <http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC% 
26R#Features_Wish_List>

-Regards, Art Barstow

On Apr 30, 2009, at 10:31 PM, ext Sullivan, Bryan wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> I appreciate the consensus on the required attribute.
>
> The duration attribute is an attempt to address the more fine- 
> grained "needs vs policy" alignment that is hinted at in the  
> "required" flag. As widget runtime environments are deployed with  
> policy controls on what can be accessed (e.g. OMTP's BONDI), we  
> need to figure out how to let users know as soon as possible in the  
> widget lifecycle (i.e. discovery/installation/use) that a widget  
> will not work unless it is allowed certain permissions in the  
> user's device. It is undesirable for users to find out that a  
> widget will not work after having gone through the trouble of  
> downloading it (and maybe paying). So some expression of the  
> intended behavior (or necessary permissions) of the widget is  
> needed, more fine grained than simple access to an API.  
> Alternatively, some way for the widget or widget source (e.g. app  
> store) to discover the permissions that will apply to the widget  
> could be provided.
>
> However the "required" flag is at least a good step in the right  
> direction, and I am OK with postponing the "duration" attribute for  
> further discussion.
>
> Best regards,
> Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 13:16:12 GMT

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