Re: Widgets PAG seeks feedback on Widget Updates spec

On 7/15/09 5:56 PM, Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> Dear Robin,
>
> Thanks for your email.
>
> Robin Berjon a écrit :
>>
>>> 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) ?
>>
>> You seem to be mixing up Widget Updates and the update() method, is
>> that the case?
> JCD: I understood the widget.update() method being discussed to be the
> scripted version of the Widget Updates mechanism.

No. Read the spec. It says it's just a way of checking if an update is 
available (by asking the UA to check) and _not_ a way for a widget to 
update itself. Apples and oranges, as they say! (no pun intended)

> Please tell me if I am wrong. The current draft seems to still say that.

You are wrong. The current draft does not specify anything normative 
about the behavior of widget.update().

> And I am really not sure that a script-triggered version of the update

There has _NEVER_ been a "script-triggered version of the update" or any 
such functionality specified by the Working Group. To imply otherwise is 
misleading.

> mechanism can be discarded off-hand.

Yes it can: I discarded it from the spec.

The point is moot. The issue has been resolved. Widget.update() does not 
exist (and has absolutely nothing to do with the PAG or whatever: 
widget.update was deemed useless by the Working Group long ago. We've 
just been too busy to publish a new draft without widget.update()).

So, please stop bringing up this closed issue.

As the Working Group awaits the findings of the PAG on how to proceed 
with Widget Updates, I find it inappropriate that you continue to 
discuss this matter here.

Once the PAG findings are made public, and the WG has a chance to 
respond and act, then, if you have concerns, raise them here.

Kind regards,
Marcos