W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [widgets] feature: inconsistent behavior ?

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:30:27 +0000
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0A35D2BF-953C-4269-AE54-08062334D3B2@gmail.com>
To: cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr

On 6 Jan 2010, at 10:08, Cyril Concolato wrote:
>
> I think you misunderstood me.
>
> There is a difference between an 'unsupported'/'unavailable' feature  
> as 'foo:bar' in your example and an 'invalid feature name' as in the  
> test-suite example:
>
> <widget>
> <name>d4</name>
> <feature name="invalid feature IRI" required="true"/>
> </widget>
>
> I'm not asking that 'unsupported'/'unavailable' features are ignored  
> as indeed this would contradict the default value of 'required'. I'm  
> asking that 'invalid' feature are ignored (whether they are required  
> or not). This would be consistent with the rest of the spec.


If a feature is required by the widget, and it isn't available for any  
reason (including an invalid IRI) then its reasonable for the UA to  
assume this Widget just won't work and reject it. It may simply be a  
typo, e.g.:

<feature name="http;//bondi.omtp.org/api/camera.capture"  
required="true"/>
                                     ^ typo!

I don't think it would be useful for this to silently fail.

>
> Cyril
>
> -- 
> Cyril Concolato
> Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
> Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
> Telecom ParisTech
> 46 rue Barrault
> 75 013 Paris, France
> http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/
>



Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 10:31:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:36 GMT