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

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

From: Sullivan, Bryan <BS3131@att.com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 11:36:37 -0700
Message-ID: <8080D5B5C113E940BA8A461A91BFFFCD0DF4F7FE@BD01MSXMB015.US.Cingular.Net>
To: <marcosc@opera.com>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: "public-webapps" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos,
I believe it will get used, because widget designers of widgets that use various network based resources will need to adapt their widgets to the local policies of the host device. A widget may be designed to use various resources if available, and work in limited fashion or use backup options if some resources are inaccessible on the target device. Use of this flag ensures that widgets with such alternatives can reach a wider set of target devices, because while presence of the <access> element is essential for resources to be accessible, those that are optional can be known earlier. It will thus result in a better user experience as the true compatibility of the widget with the target device can be determined as early as possible in the discovery/download/use process, e.g. at the app store.

Best regards,
Bryan Sullivan | AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: marcosscaceres@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Robin Berjon
Cc: Sullivan, Bryan; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] Comments to <access> element text

On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> Hi Bryan,
>
> On Apr 30, 2009, at 16:06 , Sullivan, Bryan wrote:
>>
>> Here are a couple of suggestions for the <access> element
>> (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-access-element):
>>
>> Attributes
>>
>> (add two new attributes)
>>
>> required: Optional.
>>
>
> I'm happy to add a required attribute with the same semantics and processing
> as those of the same attribute on <feature>. I think it makes sense to be
> consistent here.
>

I can live with this if the rest of the WG wants it, but I don't get
the sense this will get used much (i.e., required = "false'). So
again, do we _REALLY_ need this?

>> duration: Optional.
>>
>> One of "one-shot", "session", "blanket", indicating the duration of the
>> access essential to the operation of the widget, and thus must be allowed to
>> the widget at runtime. In other words, the duration attribute denotes the
>> minimum period over which the widget requires access to the resource,
>> without further user action authorizing continued access. Without this
>> minimum duration the widget serves no useful purpose or won't execute
>> properly.
>>
>
> I don't think that hits the 80/20 mark. I think it's largely a UI decision,
> not something that ought to be requested by the widget author. For instance
> on the Mac I use Little Snitch, which tells me when any app tries to access
> an address and port combination that I haven't granted access to, and it
> allows me to provide access once/until quit/forever. That all happens at the
> UI layer, it's not something that apps request (nor should it be as
> irrespective of what they ask the decision should rest with me, the
> all-powerful user). What's more if we add that we can add a lot of other
> things such as roaming, time of day (which can influence the price of a byte
> in some places), etc.
>

Agreed.
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Friday, 1 May 2009 18:37:35 GMT

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