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

Re: [widgets] feature: inconsistent behavior ?

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 20:46:32 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10671001061146v5b5faf59xd3b6bb386bc7d8c0@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Cc: "cyril.concolato" <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Scott Wilson
<scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

FWIW, I agree with Scott. However, Cyril's point is valid in the the
behavior is a bit inconstant with the spec... but, as Scott has shown
through his example, it's with good reason.


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 19:47:06 GMT

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