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

Re: [widgets] Comments on the 22-Dec-2008 LCWD of the Widgets 1.0: P&C spec

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:18:31 -0500
Message-Id: <F0118105-6ED6-41D1-9813-6C70918AD5D3@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: ext Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>

Marcos,

On Jan 31, 2009, at 8:31 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Ok, fair enough. However, I think the words "such as" does not make
> the assertion sound particularly definitive. I think it MUST that
> widget engines support the APIs and a SHOULD that they support updates
> and sigs.
>
> New text:
> "A widget user agent is a user agent that attempts to implement this
> specification. A widget user agent MUST also support the
> [Widgets-APIs].

Does the P&C spec include any normative assertions that create a  
dependency on the API & Events spec? I just made a quick scan of the  
P&C's latest ED and I did not find any any such statements.

If there are no such dependencies - and my expectation is there  
should not be - then, SHOULD in the second sentence above is the  
strongest statement that can be made. Any of: using MAY, making the  
statement as non-normative text, or removing it altogether would be  
appropriate if there is no such a dependency.

If there is such a dependency, then that's probably a bug we need to  
discuss.

-Regards, Art Barstow
Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 14:19:21 GMT

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