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

Re: Items not listed as "new" in the draft charter

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:02:59 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10671003250502y748b9674y242aef91c051ce92@mail.gmail.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Hi Maciej,

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:50 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> WARP is a split from P+C, its ancestor is in the first draft.
>>
>> Sounds fine to document it that way, since the precursor is not clear from backtracking through "previous version" links of WARP.
>
> Yeah, the absence of a link is a bug on my part, I'll fix that.
>
>>> The Widget URI scheme was initially intended for P+C (as can be seen from the TBD section in older drafts) but the content wasn't written up before it was branched.
>>
>> That sounds like a new document to me. But either way, documenting its origin would be fine.
>
> I think the first trace of it is in http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#addressing. After that, people started talking with the TAG I presume (I wasn't in the WG during that period).
>
>>> View modes  were also in the 2008 P+C draft, but either way they probably shouldn't be listed as a widget deliverable considering that they can be used in even broader contexts (as requested by the CSS WG).
>>
>> Maybe it should be renamed to not include "Widgets" in the title, and not be identified as a Widgets deliverable. That would be fine by me.
>
> Yes, I believe that might be the plan.
>
>>> Essentially there is nothing new in widgets, the plan is simply to finish the existing ongoing work quickly.
>>
>> There is at least the new "Widget Embedding" item in the charter (which is indicated as a new item).
>
> Actually, it's been considered before :) http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#embedding

And widgets have been clearly defined as being embeddable since the
"Working Draft 14 April 2008" [1]:

"Widgets are a class of client-side web application for displaying and
updating local or remote data, packaged in a way to allow a single
download and installation on a client machine or device. Widgets
typically run as stand alone applications outside of a web browser,
but it is possible to embed them into web pages."

I think I will extend this definition to make sure it's clear that
Widgets are a perfect solution for distributing other HTML5/SVG based
multimedia content, such as interactive books and audiovisual
experiences that people can keep locally, forever.

We would love Apple to participate more pro-actively in this work.  It
would be beneficial to everyone to have a royalty free general
packaging format for client-side web applications/multimedia content.

What do you think, Maciej? do you think Apple could support this work
and help us get this to Rec?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20080414/

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 25 March 2010 12:03:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT