- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:15:12 -0400
- To: Bryan Sullivan <BS3131@att.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 UTC