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

Re: [widgets] A revised proposal on widget modes

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:28:02 +0200
Message-ID: <26b395e60902211028r4bb63a7dwe2ab90a2ca55e331@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
<Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com> wrote:
> I'm not stuck on the names of the viewmodes and their respective elements.
> For example, I am inclined to agree with one of the earlier comments that
> "maximised" might be a better name for "fullscreen".

i'd like to offer a preemptive veto of maximised. it's not the correct
spelling in en-US, and anything which is likely to be misspelled is a
bad start.

<viewmodes default="floating/fullscreen/docked">

it's hard to tell if you mean that you can specify one of those, or if
/ is ok. And there's the minor issue of what happens if a certain WUA
only supports some of the modes and the widget is only allowed to
specify one.

I think i'd rather startview="x,y" where there's some rule for whether
the first or last supported view is handled.

I'd probably prefer:

    <mode name="floating" height="300" width="500"/>

    <mode name="fullscreen" max-height="500" max-width="600"/>

for the child element, i suspect it's easier to deal w/ validation.
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2009 18:32:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT