- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:55:07 +0200
- To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Jean-Claude Dufourd<jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr> wrote: > Marcos Caceres a écrit : > > >From the spec "...an author can request that a widget asynchronously > check if a widget has been updated [(i.e., that a new version of the > widget package is available online)] via the widget.update() method, > defined in the Widgets-API specification. This strategy also relies on > the author having declared a update element in the widget > configuration document, as it makes use of the URI to potentially > retrieve an UDD and relay whether an update is available back to the > instantiated Widget. **Actually performing the update is left to the > discretion of the widget user agent.**" > > > JCD: this standards trick works if your aim is to have a patent on the > highlighted point be judged as non-essential. > There are a few points to check to ensure non-essentiality: > - the language of the standard makes the feature a MAY (seems to be the > case); > - no test case uses the feature (should be easy too). > However, if the implementations consistently implement the feature, they > will infringe the patent and will get a call from the patent holder. > > It seems to me that this feature may end up as "consistently implemented". > There would then be a good case for the WG to spend some time on devising a > proper workaround. > Anyone sharing my opinion that the widget update feature will be consistenly > implemented (even if optional) ? widget.update() will be dropped from the spec. It serves no useful purpose. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 12:56:11 UTC