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

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 01:27:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikpCi6l2ISICBYyHKPndPjG0mwF6HAluAunILRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, 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>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
> W3C's widget specs are mature (i.e., most at CR or LC) and the working
> group believes them to be technically sound and, with a few
> extensions, able to meet the use cases of [2] (particularly in light
> of Google using the crx format to package applications - which is more
> or less identical on a conceptual level to the W3C Widget work).

Note: CRX was modified to support this use case. I don't think W3C
widgets would work without similar modifications. Namely the <content>
element would need to support absolute URLs, and a few other similar
changes. I'm not sure what effects this would have on the rest of the
spec, or if it is desirable.

- a
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 08:28:21 GMT

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