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

Re: [A&E] Last Call comments (1)

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:39:07 +0100
Cc: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39C69F6B-FDBC-4D93-92A3-ABFC741B7C99@gmail.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Hmm, I raised this one too.

I can't see how the origin handles instances exactly, and the concept  
of "origin" doesn't seem all that relevant to our implementation  
anyway - it looks more like something for browser makers to worry over?

Why is "origin of a widget" preferable to "instance of widget"?

This could be important as some conformance statements relate to the  
concept, e.g:
Upon getting the preferences attribute, the user agent must return a  
Storage object that represents the storage area for the origin of a  

If "origin of a widget" is not a sensible concept for the UA (as  
opposed to widget instance), does this fail conformance? How would you  
test for it for the UA anyway?


On 23 Sep 2009, at 17:10, Marcos Caceres wrote:

>> 5.4
>> How to handle multiple instances of the same widget?
>> As far as I remember it was to be moved to WURIv2, but it seems  
>> important in the context of preferences.
> No, it's not important. They are bound to the origin of a widget as
> defined in WURI, and the origin of a widget is universally unique.
> Hence, preferences are unique and not shared.

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2009 17:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:18 UTC