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

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

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 19:24:26 -0700
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>
Message-id: <5152497E-5F67-4CBA-BF82-89B82432062E@apple.com>
To: marcosc@opera.com

On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:

> 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

The Widgets Embedding spec is described as "a mechanism to allow  
embedding of packaged applications within other Web content, such as  
referencing via the HTML object element."

It looks like in 2008 it was moved to a non-normative appendix, and  
specified as a form of autodiscovery based on <a rel> rather than  
direct live embedding based on <object>: <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20080414/#embedding 
 > (the 2007 draft had only a section heading, so it's not clear to me  
what it had in mind.

It seems to me like relative to that (as well as relative to all WDs  
published under the current charter), it is fair to call it "new", as  
the current draft charter does already. I could see the argument for  
describing it differently, but I have no quarrel with the charter  
identifying it as new work.

> 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?

Apple has chosen not to participate in Widgets standards work at the  
W3C. Let me be very clear that I am reporting this as Apple's current  
position, not as a personal position, or as something I endorse, or as  
something for which I care to make a personal case. I can only  
communicate this position, it is not within my authority to change our  
approach on this. Nor am I authorized to make any announcements about  
our future plans in this general area. If you'd like to make the case  
that Apple should support W3C Widgets, then I would suggest you go  
through channels such as Apple World Wide Developer Relations.

Given Apple's position, I don't think it is helpful to give my  
personal thoughts about Widgets. I would not want to do anything that  
might directly result in the spec including Apple IP.

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 02:25:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:23 UTC