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

Re: [widgets] P&C, assertion in wrong spec

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:29:09 +0200
Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4C47B5CD-0DF7-4989-8565-DB47F8372977@berjon.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
On Aug 30, 2009, at 18:54 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>> Oh yeah, explaining why would help:) Like with the UI product from  
>>> the
>>> prev email, this UA does not execute or deal with scripts. It only
>>> deals with processing config.xml and zip files. It should not behave
>>> as a policy enforcement point.
>>
>> I think this requirement isn't appropriate for what we should  
>> consider a
>> strict P+C UA. As such, this bug could be addressed in a number of  
>> ways
>> including making the text non-normative, removing the text from the  
>> spec,
>> etc.
>>
>> The text could also be included in a document that describes or  
>> defines a
>> Widget [runtime] User Agent.
>
> I've requested that Robin add this text to the Widget URI spec. I
> think this text should live there for now, until we see if we have
> enough requirements to make a Widget UA spec.

Actually I think that the two issues should be kept separate. This may  
have a room in the WURI spec because it's about enforcing access rules  
for certain URIs.

I tend to think that the WUA spec is different: it's what you conform  
to if you're a UA. It would include some UI shoulds, and arguably a  
pointer to all the specs in the family (i.e. it could be the profile  
spec).

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 09:29:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT