W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2009

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

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:25:25 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC48395.702@opera.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
CC: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>

Scott Wilson wrote:
> 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 <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting> the
> |preferences| attribute, the user agent
> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#user-agent> /must/ return a
> |Storage <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage0>| object that
> represents the storage area
> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage-area> for the origin of
> a widget <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#origin-of-a-widget>.
> 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?

Ok, I've trashed the "origin of widget" concept. I need to write a 
proper definition of widget instance. I'll check in a new draft soon.
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 10:26:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:20 UTC