W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:43:09 -0400
Message-Id: <B44B6783-C1C4-46FA-8EBE-FF62B563057E@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
To: ifette@google.com, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>
Gregg, Ian - thanks for your input. I added Gregg's use case to the  
wiki [Features] we created to document features, use cases and  
requirements that are in scope for widgets but are not in scope for  
one of the widget specs currently in progress.

The most applicable spec in progress for Gregg's use case is the  
Widget Packaging and Configuration spec which is already a Candidate  
Recommendation [CR]. As such, a call for implementations has been  
made and we already have relatively extensive implementation data  
[ImplRept]. My expectation is that after we have all of the  
implementation data, the spec will proceed to the next step (Proposed  
Recommendation). I don't think it is reasonable to expect the WG  
members that have pushed this spec to CR to now back up and add new  
use cases (and go back to WD).

-Art Barstow

[Features] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/Widgets2_UC%26R
[CR] http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-widgets-20091201/
[ImplRept] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/imp-report/


On Apr 29, 2010, at 6:11 PM, ext Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)  
wrote:

> I remain perplexed by the state of "the spec is feature complete  
> and looking for implementations" -> potential implementors saying  
> "the spec has X,Y,Z flaws" -> "sorry, the spec is feature complete.  
> We're looking for implementations." At this rate, it's not clear to  
> me what implementations it's going to get.
>
> (speaking as an individual here, and not a representative of Google  
> Inc, Google Chrome Team, or necessarily even as a member of webapps  
> WG.)
>
> -ian
>
> Am 29. April 2010 10:38 schrieb Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>  
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Arve Bersvendsen  
> <arveb@opera.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:48:52 +0200, Gregg Tavares  
> <gman@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Has there been any consideration of switching the spec to a  
> stream-able
> >>> format like gzipped tar files?  It seems like a shame to miss  
> this use
> >>> case.
> >>
> >> A streamable container, while intriguing, also has issues.  For  
> streaming
> >> to be of use, you need to specify the order of resources: the  
> widget's
> >> configuration file and start file should be the first two files  
> in the
> >> resource bundle. Are there readily available (on all major  
> platforms) tools
> >> that do this, easily?
> >
> > Yes, Linux and OSX have gzip and tar. Tar puts the files in the  
> order given.
> >
> > Windows has 7zip (open source) and rar (shareware) which will  
> make gzipped
> > tar files and also puts the files in the order given.
>
> Our design goal [1] was always to use the lowest common denominator
> (i.e., some packaging format that was available natively on all
> platforms... [un]fortunately, Zip was the only realistic option).
> Having said that, there is no reason not to standardize a format as
> the one Gregg is suggesting. However, this would be separate from the
> current spec (which is already feature complete and looking for
> implementations).
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/
>
> >>
> >> (Other than that, see timeless' comments about this really being  
> too late
> >> for the current spec)
> >> --
> >> Arve Bersvendsen
> >>
> >> Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 00:44:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT