W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [Widgets] WidgetStorage interface

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:51:58 +0100
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2CB3B84F53524F6990D9A7F02AD950A1@gmail.com>

On Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Arthur Barstow wrote:

> On 11/21/11 12:08 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As part of LC, I've received quite a bit of offline feedback that because of some issue in Webkit, it's difficult for implementers to reuse the WebStorage interface in a widget context: the problem is that Widget's use of Web storage slightly modifies some of the behaviour of the storage methods (e.g., some things are read only and throw exceptions).
> It would be useful if you would please quantify "quite a bit" and for 
> transparency reasons to please provide a Publicly available reference to 
> this "feedback".

The feedback was offline and pertaining to unreleased products. But those that sent me the feedback are on this list. 
> > The way around this is to define a WidgetStorage interface that allows for the specific behaviour defined in the Widget spec.
> > 
> > Consequently, I want to define this interface WidgetStorage in the spec:
> > 
> > WidgetStorage : Storage{}
> > 
> > And hence:
> > 
> > readonly attribute Storage preferences;
> > 
> > Becomes:
> > readonly attribute WidgetStorage preferences;
> > 
> > In practice, the addition of WidgetStorage doesn't actually affect any conforming runtimes (but allows a bunch of new Webkit ones to comply).
> The proposed change would require the spec going back to LC. Is that 
> correct?

Don't know. The change is cosmetic but needed. 
> The proposed change, plus new test case(s) for the new feature, would 
> also result in the 4 implementations that now pass 100% of the test 
> suite, would no longer comply to the test suite until those 
> implementations are updated:
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/imp-report/
> Is that correct?
 No. The change has no impact on existing runtimes or existing content. 
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 13:52:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:37 UTC