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 10:48:38 -0800
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com>
Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "WebApps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>
Message-ID: <OFDC60F40E.EA9F213A-ON88257553.0066AA5E-88257553.00675468@us.ibm.com>

Hi Charles,
Just because the OMTP is "pay-to-play" doesn't mean their efforts are
wrong. (Isn't W3C "pay-to-play" also?) My understanding is that all of the
BONDI technologies will be RF and published as open standards, and that
they are working in good faith with the W3C and WebApps WG to make sure
their technologies fit in with what the W3C is doing. My perception is that
BONDI (with all of its mobile operator members) is focused on driving
industry support for W3C Widgets, which is a very good thing for the W3C.
If I'm wrong with these assumptions, I'd like to know about it.

But off course, W3C needs to study the BONDI specs before giving a thumbs
up, so it would be premature to reference BONDI at this point.


"Charles McCathieNevile" <chaals@opera.com> wrote on 02/04/2009 10:21:52

> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:42:08 +0100, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
> wrote:
> > 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.
> > 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.
> Err, why exactly should this group mandate a spec that has so far been
> developed in secret among a consortium of pay-to-play members? It might
> make sense for BONDI to be submitted here, and I hope that it is as good

> as it will need to be, but I don't see any reason to simply take it on
> trust that it is perfect when we haven't even seen it.
> > To me, such a spec would help promote open, interoperability
> > in the widget space. This spec could be on a delayed timeline (i.e.
> > approved after the other widget specs)...
> > but just having drafts out there would show the community what the
> > interoperability target is.
> Yes, it makes sense in practice to say what kind of baselines are
> generally supported (I don't know that this needs to be a recommendation
> it would make a fairly useful note just as a rough table).
> Doing this as an occasionaly working group note would mean it is quite
> easy process wise, and that might be the best approach.
> cheers
> Chaals
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
>      je parle franšais -- hablo espa˝ol -- jeg lŠrer norsk
> http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 18:49:43 UTC

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