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

Re: [widgets] Further argument for making config.xml mandatory

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:24:58 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903190724q3e0362b1if1b13aa977a5e512@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
<Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com> wrote:
> Hi Marcos, All,
> I would like to raise a comment in support of making the configuration
> document at the root of the widget mandatory.
> The localisation model currently described by [1] allows for multiple
> configuration documents; zero or one at the root of the widget and zero or
> one at the root of each locales folder.
> While we support the approach of allowing localisation of the configuration
> document (with the addition of the fallback mechanism that has been
> previously discussed), one concern we had with such an approach was that it
> doesn't make sense to localise some of the information in the
> configuration document, for example: the feature element, (the replacement
> for) the access element, the license element, the id and version attributes
> (and maybe others?). In fact in some cases, allowing different values
> could present security risks.
> Previously we (Vodafone) had considered an approach of requiring user agents
> to, for example, create a list of all feature elements present in any valid
> configuration document. We had not yet thought how to handle the case in
> which the different configuration documents contain different id attribute
> values.
> However, now that there is a proposal to make the configuration document at
> the root of the widget mandatory, I would like to propose that a better
> (although not pretty) solution would be specify which attributes and
> elements are localisable. The non-localisable attributes / elements would
> only be valid if included in the configuration document at the root of the
> widget.
> Thoughts?

Proposal: not localizable:
<widget>'s id and version attributes.
<feature> and its <options>

The following elements would be localizable:
 widget (but no id or version, derived from root config, if available)

FWIW, I think this will confuse authors... and irritate the poor souls
who need to implement this :)

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2009 14:25:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:14 UTC