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

Re: [A&E] Last Call comments (2): discovery & localization

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 11:36:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC5C98B.10506@opera.com>
To: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>
CC: "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>


Marcin Hanclik wrote:
> Hi Marcos,
>
>>> It is out of scope to define how bindings to features occur.
> Why? Where is the scope defined?

The scope (and binding way the binding occurs) is defined in the spec 
that is behaving as a feature. Take Geolocation: it clearly states that 
binding of the geolocation API happens on the Window object. I guess 
that means the scope is the scripting environment.

If a feature wants to override the widget object, then that is ok with 
me. We should not impose any restrictions on features and how they are 
associated/bound/scoped/supplemented etc. to widgets.

> And yes, i.e. we should not limit bindings to API only.

Right.

>>> If you want to discover if you
>>> have a feature, try to run it.
>
> P&C says:
> " A feature is a runtime component (e.g. an Application Programming Interface or video decoder) that is not part of the specified set provided by the Widgets 1.0 family of specifications. The feature element serves as a standardized means to request the binding of an (IRI) identifiable runtime component to a widget for use at runtime. Using a feature element denotes that, at runtime, a widget can attempt to access the feature  identified by the feature element's name attribute."
>
> Therefore it is nowhere specified that you can "run" a feature. E.g. how could you run a video decoder?

I don't know. What is the real question you are trying to ask?

> What if the feature has bigger scope than just a method or property?

That's fine. It could be like Google Frame, for all widgets care (i.e., 
completely take over the runtime and provide its own runtime).

> If we want to keep the feature more abstract, we should be able to discover whether the feature was available during instantiation or installation of the widget without prescribing that we must "run" a feature.

Why? And also, in the case of APIs like geolocation, you just test if 
the geolocation methods are there. I don't understand why you would want 
anything else? This is getting into the hasFeature() debate again. I 
thought we had proved to you that hasFeature is no suitable and 
basically borked.

> The phrase "a runtime component" does not entail the fact that the "runtime component" is runnable. API is just an example.

Yes, that is fine. If it was not available at all, then the widget would 
not have run. That is the rule.

If its "run" but not available within the scope of the scripting 
environment, then the specification defining the feature should just add 
a method for testing that it is available. Or authors should just 
provide a fall back for whatever feature, just in case.

> It is simply a component that is "available at runtime" (the interpretation may be different depending on whether you perceive "runtime" as an adjective or a noun) [1], [2].

I think we are splitting hair here.

> What if the feature name would be "hardware://keyboard" indicating that a keyboard is required for the widget or "codec://H.264"?

That would be fine.

> The above could be merged into "device://dev/keyboard" and "device://codec/H.264" respectively.

That would be fine too.

> (another BTW: similarly I would treat the network access as a runtime component, see the WARP discussions).

That would also be fine too.

> Although your example uses unknown skynet scheme, it seems to be equivalent to some API-related scheme, whereas a feature has (should have) more abstract interpretation and be extensible to live 10^n years.
Received on Friday, 2 October 2009 09:36:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:34 GMT