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

Re: Widget API Set/GetPreferences vs. HTML5 Key/Value Pairs Storage

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:40:46 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670902030640o6a0d8a6co9b61194b70ac8f7a@mail.gmail.com>
To: ivan.demarino@orange-ftgroup.com
Cc: rafel.uddin@orange-ftgroup.com, mali.ext@orange-ftgroup.com, public-webapps@w3.org, linuxcoder@gmail.com

Hi Ivan, All,

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:19 AM,  <ivan.demarino@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote:
> Hello.
> After some emails with Marcos Caceres we reached the conclusion that
> part of the Specs of Widget APIs
> (http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/) overlaps/clashes with the
> HTML5 standard draft about Key/Value Pairs Storage
> (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#structured-client-si
> de-storage).
> Our suggestion is that we should go with the HTML5 standard, removing
> those apis the Widget API Specs, because:
> 1) Most probably it will be supported from every browser soon anyway
> 2) There are Open Source browsers, like WebKit, were it's already
> finding it's space (take a look to the WebKit source code)
> 3) It will allow developer to learn less apis for the same purpose
> 4) They do the same thing but...
> 5) The HTML5 draft already provides APIs for "enumeration", "cleaning"
> and "iteration"
> 6) The Widget object will become more coherent, focusing on things like
> "widget status" and "widget informations"
> 7) The OMTP BONDI initiative itself avoided to go into the "Persistent
> Storage" aspect, because of the presence of Google (with Google Gears)
> and HTML5 Proposal, as you can see from the "BONDI Interfaces Specs" at
> http://www.omtp.org/Bondi/PublicDraft.aspx.

I've added a note in the API spec that preferences is at risk pending
further investigation of how to implement HTML5 Storage's interface. I
personally don't know HTML5 well enough to make an assessment on the
viability of using this feature, so will probably need to liaise with
members from the HTML-WG  to see how/if we can make this work.

Seems that one of the main barriers we have is in relation to origin
and the lack of a URI scheme for widgets. I've also added space in the
API spec for where the URI scheme for widgets should be specified. I'm
happy to investigate Storage by reading the HTML5 spec and liaising
with the HTML-WG, but that won't happen for at least three weeks or
more. If someone else wants to start investigating this and putting
together a solid input, then by all means do so.

If anyone feels strongly that we should not go down the HTML5 Storage
route, then please speak up and provide us with a technical rationale.

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 14:45:18 UTC

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