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

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 06:16:42 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFB4F2A.3000906@w3.org>
To: ifette@google.com
CC: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, marcosc@opera.com, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Hi, Folks-

Sorry to jump in on this thread so late; I've been busy and traveling.

As W3C Team Contact for this group, I strongly agree with Ian here 
regarding the tone of some of the responses.  Technical comments on this 
list should be treated with the respect they are due.  If you feel 
something has been adequately covered in the archives, point to an 
example email.  Please keep this list civil, technical, and productive.

On a logistical level, I again agree with Ian.  I'm rather disappointed 
that we can't solve this problem more quickly.  I think Gregg raised 
worthwhile use cases and points for consideration [1], and wonder if 
this might not be dealt with in the Widgets Embedding spec... after all, 
that is intended for the latter case he mentions.  I can think of many 
worse things than having 2 alternate compression schemes, if the use 
cases are different.  (Yes, I realize I'm speaking loosely and there 
might be serious technical problems with this approach... I'm just 
brainstorming here.)

Aaron Boodman suggested something [2] on the WHATWG list that sounds 
suspiciously like Widgets, and it would be a real shame to miss out on 
this opportunity for increasing the applicability of the Widgets specs 
in multiple scenarios and platforms.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2010AprJun/0349.html

-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 04:16:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:25 UTC