W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

Re: Using W3C widgets in a web container: two implementations contrasted

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:26:07 +0000
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5971C6F.3D2D%marcosscaceres@gmail.com>


Hi, Scott!

On 1/14/09 7:55 PM, "Scott Wilson" <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> All,
> 
> Two EU-funded projects have implemented the draft W3C Widgets
> specifications, both the packaging and API parts.
> 
This is fantastic to hear.

> What is notable from these projects have been the adaptations used to
> enable widgets conforming to the draft to be used in a web environment
> rather than in a dedicated platform such as a browser, OS or device
> "widget layer". We've documented and discussed the extensions and
> implementation approaches here:
> 
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk-about-widgets/web/implementating-the-w3c-w
> idget-specification
> 
> In brief, the Palette project has added W3C widgets functionality
> through developing the engine as part of an open-source portal web
> application, whereas the TenCompetence project developed a standalone
> open-source engine for adding widgets to multiple web applications,
> rather similar in approach to the Apache Shindig project for
> implementing Google OpenSocial.

Interesting. 
 
> In addition, both projects wanted to add additional functionality to
> the API; this has included state coupling and shared states to enable
> richer interaction between (a) widgets in the same user context and
> (b) instances of the same widget from different users (i.e.
> collaborative applications such as chat and voting).
>
> Note that though both were funded by the EC IST programme, Palette and
> TenCompetence had not been collaborating prior to a recent event where
> members of both were asked to provide papers, when we discovered we
> had undertaken parallel efforts at solving the same problems with the
> same specifications! Hopefully this gives others an opportunity to
> learn from our different approaches.

Any feedback you have from implementing the packaging spec would be
particularly helpful at this point. WRT APIs, we are very open to hearing
what you have in mind. However, having looked at the link you sent above,
I'm wondering why you didn't rely on XMLHttpRequest for doing the network
requests?    
 
> Both projects are focussed on networked learning solutions and
> research, for which Widgets provided an elegant solution to a number
> of issues in reaching learners and co-ordinating access to
> functionality. For more background on the projects themselves, see:
> 
> http://www.tencompetence.org
> http://palette.ercim.org/
> 

Thanks for this info.

Kind regards,
Marcos 
Received on Saturday, 17 January 2009 18:37:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:29 GMT