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

Re: [widgets] Purpose and utility of <feature> unclear

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 15:50:05 +0300
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FE583088-3EC5-418B-953C-BCF0535595DA@iki.fi>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
On Jun 1, 2009, at 18:26, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Imagine that a new groups need to be set up to deal with Camara- 
> privacy, Contacts-privacy, etc., etc.,... this stuff is going to  
> take like 10 years to sort out.

One might argue that camera shouldn't be an API but a UI extension of  
the <input type=file> file picker and that the operations of adding  
contacts or calendar items should be based on user initiating an  
action on microformat/microdata marked-up part of a page. It's easy to  
see how the Right Thing and time-to-market are at odds here.

> Also, it is hard to tell if Mozilla has done a good job or not with  
> their UIs: Those APIs and the corresponding user interfaces have not  
> been in the wild long enough to be able to give an objective  
> assessment...

Fair point.

> For the purpose of the disposition of comments, and as far as the  
> current text in the specification goes, can I record that your  
> comments have been addressed?

You may record my questions as addressed with the commenter agreeing  
except for one case:

I still think that the policy of having to use <feature> to activate a  
feature should be presumptively limited to widget-oriented features  
instead of being presumptively required for new features in general.

I'll start new threads for additional comments

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:50:50 GMT

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