- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:47:55 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Jul 6, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On 7/6/09 3:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> 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"?
Sorry, by "this" I mean the ability for a widget to check if there
exists a new version of itself. I can see value in the UA doing that
on its own, at intervals and criteria (not if I'm roaming, more often
if it crashed recently, etc) that can be set by the user. The UA would
then provide a consistent UI indicating that an update is available
and getting permission from the user (or just doing it, if allowed to
do so).
The value in allowing authors to add <blink color='red'>Update!</
blink> seems rather limited to me, is what I'm saying.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:48:31 UTC