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

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:13:28 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670902040613r3754d4dchc0d7e7495ec9ec28@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>

Hi Robin,
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 02:20 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>> Is there a reason to require any formats? In very few places we do
>>> this. For example the HTML and CSS specs don't require support for
>>> JPEG, GIF or PNG. Neither HTML or SVG require support for javascript.
>>>
>>> Is there a reason for the widget spec to be different?
>>
>> I guess it's not really about mandating that the widget user agent
>> support SVG, just that it look for SVG as a default start file.
>
> My request actually covered both. But apparently you've now removed the
> requirement to support HTML, so maybe I can withdraw that part of my
> objection. I would prefer if HTML and SVG were both required because it
> makes widgets more useful when you know what you can rely on, but I can live
> with nothing specific being required.

To be clear, formats that need to be supported by a user agent will
not be mandated in the Widgets P&C specification, which is only
concerned with packaging and configuration.

Personally, I would like to see a list of baseline formats that a
widget engine should support specified somewhere (e.g., html, svg,
png, css, etc.), but that might just have to be left to the market or
put into a new specification.

Kind regards,
Marcos

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 14:14:11 GMT

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