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: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:15:39 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670902030615n68a375f9ue76128cb2f7d2839@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> I think we want our specs to be modular i.e. to separate concerns as much as
> possible and we should continue being careful to not build
> unnecessary/harmful dependencies. Based on what you say above, we appear to
> have met those goals for the P&C spec.

Ok. Agreed. I've changed the P&C spec and removed unnecessary
dependencies pertaining to the concept of a "Widget User Agent" at
large. For example, I've removed dependencies of Widget updates
XMLHTTPRequest as part of the definition. I've moved the need for a UA
to support XMLHTTPRequest to the API spec. I've also relaxed the need
to support any file formats, as the spec is only really concerned with
sniffing the formats, not actually rendering them (section 3.1).

The spec now reads:

"A user agent is a user agent that attempts to implement this specification.

Note: The user agent described in this specification does not denote a
"widget user agent" at large: that is, a user agent that implements
all the specifications, and dependencies, defined in the Widgets 1.0:
Family of Specifications. The user agent described is this
specification is only concered with how to processes zip archives and
configuration documents."

> Indeed we have talked about creating some type of "uber" spec. I'm not
> convinced we need it, if all that it essentially says is something like "A
> widget user agent must implement [P&C], [APIs&Events], [DigSig], [...]". To
> me, such a statement feels a bit like what I would call a procurement
> statement (also know as a RFQ) e.g. "I'll only purchase an implementation of
> widget agent X if it implements specs A, B, C" and that feels like something
> for the market to decide rather than being codified in a spec.

Understood. Can you please check that sections 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 are all OK?

Kind regards,

Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 14:22:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC