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

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 11:14:38 +0200
Message-ID: <n2wb21a10671005040214q8d93e21ejde3bb1b36f13ffe3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Cc: ifette@google.com, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Scott,

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Scott Wilson
<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 Apr 2010, at 18:46, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote:
>
> Marcos, Chaals, fair points. I can't honestly say that we are looking to
> implement this spec at this point,
>
> I saw a very nice W3C Widgets implementation on Android the other day ;-)

Great! can you let us know what it was so we can add it to our
implementations list.

> and certainly I am not the type to raise a formal objection, so please don't
> misinterpret this as "I think this spec needs to go back to an earlier stage
> in the formal process." I also understand that once things start to ship in
> implementations, they are harder to change. I guess what irked me was that
> there was what I saw as a valid point being raised and dismissed. I do think
> that having a packaged format that is streamable would be useful, especially
> if you wanted to host these widgets inside of any container / page that may
> load the widgets dynamically (e.g. iGoogle as an example of a web page
> loading what are essentially widgets). I would agree that given your
> existing implementors and the use cases they are targeting, it is likely not
> important enough to cause strife to existing implications and cause them not
> to work. My hope was that perhaps it could be considered and a
> backwards-compatible mechanism could be found. e.g. today browsers and
> servers negotiate what encodings they accept, one could imagine a similar
> negotiation taking place prior to whatever widget is there being served up.
> I think it is something to consider, at the very least for v2.
>
> Certainly sounds like an interesting UC for v2

I think we all agree. I'll note that the W3C did try to start some
work on something similar about a decade ago:

http://www.w3.org/XML/2000/07/xml-packaging-charter.html

There might be something useful there (or not).

Kind regards,
Marcos

-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2010 09:15:30 GMT

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