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

Re: Widgets PAG seeks feedback on Widget Updates spec

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:35:57 +0200
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FE18F375-6A5F-40B8-A95A-59B1981AF3BA@berjon.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Hey Marcos,

On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> The purpose of widget.update() is/was _not_ to  "update" the widget in
> any meaningful way:
> (...)
> In other words, it was/is a means to for a widget to ask the Widget
> User Agent if an update is available from the remote location
> addressed by the update element's href attribute (so, really it should
> have been called "checkForUpdate()" or "updateInfo = new
> UpdateChecker()", which the example begins to elude to). As it says in
> the spec, "_actually performing the update is left to the discretion
> of the widget user agent._"

Thanks for the clarification. This however does not strike me as  
something that is vitally useful. Is there really a strong use case  
backing this? I'd much rather see updates entirely handled by the UA  
(with or without the sulphurous smell coming from Apple when one  
mentions this topic) as they are generally in a better position to  
handle this correctly (from within the UA context we'd have to handle  
the fact that it might clash with <access>, that the response isn't  
boolean, etc. and people would likely get that wrong, were they to use  
this feature).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 13:36:34 GMT

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