W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [widgets] What does it mean to have an unavailable API

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 18:45:28 +0200
Message-ID: <b21a10670907030945w6d2ee763x11350c223679ed2b@mail.gmail.com>
To: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Henri,
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Henri Sivonen<hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. I see what you mean. Widget.hasFeature has slightly different
>> semantics (in widgets, it means "did that feature I requested load and
>> become available?"
>
> Which brings up the issue that it's unclear what it means for an API to have
> latent support but not having been activated with <feature>.
>
> If a widget UA has an implementation for window.frob() and frob() requires
> <feature> activation, what should happen when frob() hasn't been activated
> with <feature>? Should there be no function object for frob()? Or should it
> be there but throw upon calling? Or something else.
>
> Please specify this.
>

In the spec we now say:
"How a user agent makes use of features depends on the user agent's
security policy, hence activation and authorization requirements for
features are beyond the scope of this specification."

In other words, we don't go into how binding happens and leave up to
the implementation. It's outside the scope of packaging. DAP will
probably deal with this.

For the sake of the disposition of comments, is that ok?

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 3 July 2009 16:46:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT