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

RE: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, interoperability

From: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:18:44 +0200
To: "marcosc@opera.com" <marcosc@opera.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FAA1D89C5BAF1142A74AF116630A9F2C0A26ED9004@OBEEX01.obe.access-company.com>
Hi Marcos,

>>No, they are different...
From the interoperability perspective both are "potential interoperability issues".

>>You can't dictate those rules in the spec because they are based on
>>the capability of the device.
Of course, not everything can be captured.
But I think the spec has already some overview of what could be a potential - and already easy to fix - interoperability issue.
One of the initial items is e.g. length of path for the files within widget package.

I understand that the implementations may have arbitrary path lengths.
But to ensure the interoperability from the very beginning, some reasonable limit could be put already.
E.g. 1024 bytes for the maximum path length.

>>For example, there might be devices out
>>there that can handle a HTML canvas at size 32,000 x 32,000.
I do not want to specify a limit in P&C for items outside of P&C spec.
Let's specify what we can.

BTW: If we already talk about future (specs to be valid in 100 years or so), there is already a limit put on HTML canvas:
interface HTMLCanvasElement : HTMLElement {
           attribute unsigned long width;
           attribute unsigned long height;
...
};
but we ONLY THINK that it is limitless and unrestricted.
Unsigned long ranges from 0 to 4294967295.
If I would produce now a device with bigger resolution I would face an issue.

Thanks.

Kind regards,
Marcin

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik@access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: marcosscaceres@gmail.com [mailto:marcosscaceres@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 4:31 PM
To: Marcin Hanclik
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: [widgets] P&C Last Call comments, interoperability

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Marcin Hanclik
<Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com> wrote:
> 8.2
> For the sake of interoperability, extensions to the configuration document are NOT RECOMMENDED.
>
> 8.3
> User agents SHOULD impose their own implementation-specific limits on the values of otherwise unconstrained attribute types, e.g. to
> prevent denial of service attacks, to guard against running out of memory, or to work around platform-specific limitations.
>
> So what is actually said about interoperability?
> Extension to the configuration document is a similar interoperability issue as the implementation-specific limit is, IMHO.
>

No, they are different...

> Rules for limits or simply limits shall be specified to facilitate interoperability.

You can't dictate those rules in the spec because they are based on
the capability of the device. For example, there might be devices out
there that can handle a HTML canvas at size 32,000 x 32,000. You can't
go mandating in the spec that such values are not allowed because of
constraints and limitation of today's hardware and software. If the
implementation can handle really big things, then it should be free to
do so; if not, it can impose its own constraints so not to crash.

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


________________________________________

Access Systems Germany GmbH
Essener Strasse 5  |  D-46047 Oberhausen
HRB 13548 Amtsgericht Duisburg
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michel Piquemal, Tomonori Watanabe, Yusuke Kanda

www.access-company.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments hereto may contain information that is privileged or confidential, and is intended for use only by the
individual or entity to which it is addressed. Any disclosure, copying or distribution of the information by anyone else is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this document in error, please notify us promptly by responding to this e-mail. Thank you.
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:19:43 GMT

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