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

Re: Widgets PAG seeks feedback on Widget Updates spec

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:07:35 +0200
Message-ID: <4A520527.90009@opera.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>

On 7/6/09 3:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.

What's "this"?

> 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).

Sorry Robin, you've totally lost me :( Can we start from the beginning 

Kind regards,
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:08:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:17 UTC