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

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

From: SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:48:13 +0100
To: <marcosc@opera.com>, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
CC: <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com>, <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C5E9410D.1EA1C%benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>
I believe that when creating content, it is easier/clearer to have multiple
files. There is less confusion and therfore less errors.

> 
> Benoit  Suzanne
> Widget Factory Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
> t. +33 (0)145 298  198 - m. +33 (0)680 287 553
> benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com
> 
 



> From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
> Reply-To: <marcosc@opera.com>
> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:06:31 +0100
> To: Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
> Cc: <Jere.Kapyaho@nokia.com>, <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>,
> <public-webapps@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: [widgets] Further argument for making config.xml mandatory
> Resent-From: <public-webapps@w3.org>
> Resent-Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:07:10 +0000
> 
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Andrew Welch <andrew.j.welch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> That's exactly what I was talking about when I said "even thought the XML
>>> i18n
>>> guidelines say it's bad practice,'.
>> 
>> Ahh very sorry, I just saw the email after that containing the code
>> sample, and gmail collapses the quoted parts.... my bad.
>> 
>> 
>>> However, Addison Phillips, the
>>> Chair of i18n core, said the following in the formal feedback
>>> representing the i18n WG's LC comments for the spec [1]:
>>> 
>>> "Section 7.4 (Widget) The various language bearing elements such as
>>> <name>, <description>, etc. are of the zero-or-one type. However, it
>>> is typically better to allow any number of these elements to occur,
>>> provided that none share the same xml:lang. This allows for
>>> localization (which is part of the point in allowing xml:lang on the
>>> element)."
>>> 
>>> So we have been blessed by them to do this... umm.... this somewhat
>>> questionable, yet problem solving thing :)
>>> 
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JanMar/0259.html
>> 
>> That's interesting, because xml:lang seems pretty redundant otherwise!
> 
> Alright, lets see a show of hands for this approach! Who supports us
> just having a single config.xml with a bunch of repeated elements, but
> with different xml:langs?
> 
> Advantages here are:
>   *  we only need to make very small modifications to the parsing model.
>   *  no more searching for config docs in locale folders
>   *  no multiple parsing of config files
> 
> Disadvantages:
>  * large, and, if not careful, hard to maintain config files
> 
> Kind regards,
> Marcos
> 
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
> 
Received on Friday, 20 March 2009 11:50:11 GMT

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