W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Widgets & ApplicationCache (was: Standards for Web applications on mobile devices: August 2011 updates)

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:32:53 +0200
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webapps@w3.org
Message-ID: <905C3CAB9A4C4C72A1F64F2201D3DF42@gmail.com>


On Monday, September 19, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:

> Le samedi 17 septembre 2011 à 10:30 +0100, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> > shortcut: if you want to (incorrectly, IMO) continue to lump widgets
> > and app cache, then do so making it clear that this is just one of the
> > use cases for widgets and certainly NOT the primary use case…
>  
> My document focuses on technologies available to build client-side Web
> applications for mobile devices; the 52 specifications that the document
> mentions have all use cases that go well beyond that use case, but I
> don't think the document would win in usefulness or clarity by stating
> so for each of these specifications.
That's fine, but please make that clear - it is not clear enough in the introduction. I.e., just adapt what you say above and put it in the introduction:  

[[
This document focuses on technologies that may aid in the development of client-side Web applications for mobile devices; the specifications that the document mentions have all use cases that go well beyond the mobile application use case. For example, in addition to aiding in the development of client-side Web applications for mobile devices, W3C Widgets have been used as server side-applications, standalone applications, daemons, and as a Browser extension format. Similarly, [SVG] ...
]]

You can fill out the SVG bit or pick some other technology.  

> >  And please add a separate section just for Widgets in your document
> > that explains the other cases.  
>  
> If by the other cases, you mean:
>  
> > They have been used as server side applications, standalone
> > applications, daemons, and as an extension format.  
>  
> Server-side applications, daemons, and browser extensions are clearly
> out of scope of the document, so I don't think it would make sense to
> list them.
With a more clear understanding of what you are trying to achieve, I agree.  
>  
> > I agree that there are similarities and overlap for this *one* use
> > case; but again, the use cases of Widgets are far greater than
> > ApplicationCache. To lump them together waters Widgets down to a
> > confusing equivalent to AppCache.
>  
> The document specifically says that the two approaches are complementary
> (not redundant), and summarizes what the two technologies provide.
>  
> I don't see why having them in the same section would mean they're
> equivalent (again, no more than having SVG and CSS in the same section
> would mean they're equivalent).
>  
> If you think the current description doesn't convey clearly enough the
> differences between the two approaches, I'll be happy to review a better
> description (either in reply to this mail, or directly in the wiki
> http://www.w3.org/wiki/Standards_for_Web_Applications_on_Mobile ).
>  
> Dom
Received on Monday, 19 September 2011 10:33:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:47 GMT