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

Re: Required support for SVG in widgets

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 06:42:08 -0800
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, public-webapps-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE064DBCA.27EBDF12-ON88257553.00500A76-88257553.0050C34D@us.ibm.com>

The Web Apps WG should create yet another (short) widget spec, which would
be an Open Web profile spec that simply provides a checklist for two
interoperability levels for conformance. In both profiles, the user agent
would be required to implement all of the various Widgets spec. One
interoperability profile would require support for the vague notion of
"HTML" (defacto standard HTML, not XHTML) and the other profile would
require support for SVG Tiny 1.2. Both profiles should mandate OMTP BONDI.

To me, such a spec would help promote open, interoperability technologies
in the widget space. This spec could be on a delayed timeline (i.e.
approved after the other widget specs), particularly to allow BONDI to
reach completion, but just having drafts out there would show the community
what the interoperability target is.

Jon



                                                                           
             Robin Berjon                                                  
             <robin@berjon.com                                             
             >                                                          To 
             Sent by:                  Marcos Caceres                      
             public-webapps-re         <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>          
             quest@w3.org                                               cc 
                                       public-webapps@w3.org               
                                                                   Subject 
             02/04/2009 03:29          Re: Required support for SVG in     
             AM                        widgets                             
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





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.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/








graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic04476.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic04476.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 14:43:01 GMT

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