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

Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:12:56 +0200
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, 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>
Message-Id: <5D31B3B9-2DCC-4F89-B645-93F751CBF872@berjon.com>
To: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
On May 25, 2010, at 10:27 , Aaron Boodman wrote:
> 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.

That sort of change wouldn't be very hard to specify, all that would be needed would be a way to disambiguate absolute URLs from the path references (different element, different attribute, different syntax in the existing attribute  all have their trade-offs) designed in such a way as to be backwards compatible. If there's interest, we can certainly look into it!

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:13:31 GMT

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