W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > December 2012

Re: FYI, tag election links

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:08:46 +0100
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhL-CUuGpFYjb=D6CWgsjYq67k04u_d2YD5xJr95gFxegQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On 17 December 2012 01:00, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote:

> John Kemp created some App Architecture diagrams which could serve as a
> starting point for
> this work.  See attached.
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> On 12/16/2012 2:09 PM, Noah Mendelsohn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2012 3:25 PM, Larry Masinter wrote:
>>
>>> I've been looking without success for the table of contents we drafted,
>>> It would be great to (re)start a discussion about an AWWW update.
>>>
>>
>> I need to look more, as I'm pretty sure there were some actual TOCs, but
>> these are examples of the planning we did and discussions held [1-6] that I
>> managed to dig up in just a bit of looking. I think [3] is a revision by
>> Jonathan Rees of a version first drafted by Ashok [2]. I don't think any of
>> these had full group consensus, but both were viewed as promising. My
>> strategy for finding these was to look through F2F minutes from the
>> 209-2010 period at [7] (all this clerical work recording minutes pays off
>> occasionally). I haven't looked through all of them, but certainly there is
>> more discussion I didn't link.
>>
>> Noah
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.**html#item07<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/12/08-tagmem-minutes.html#item07>
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2009/06/webAppsTOC-20090625<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/06/webAppsTOC-20090625>
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2009/09/webAppsTOC-20090921>
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**doc/content-to-apps.html<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/content-to-apps.html>
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2010/03/26-minutes.html#item02<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/26-minutes.html#item02>
>> [6] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/**2010/03/web-apps-taxonomy/web-**
>> apps-taxonomy.html<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2010/03/web-apps-taxonomy/web-apps-taxonomy.html>
>> [7] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#**about<http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/#about>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> **
> Web App Taxonomy[image: Client-side Static Mash-up]
>
>    - Commonly known as "widgets"
>    - Require a separate "download" step before runtime
>    - Trust often established between widget and widget platform (by means
>    of crypto signatures)
>    - Trust often proxied by use of an "app-store" model
>
> [image: Server-side Static Mash-up]
>
>    - Widgets on the server-side
>    - No separate download step, but often requires installation of
>    content to a "container"
>    - One website combines content from multiple other websites, often by
>    means of iFrames
>    - External content validated statically by (for example) Caja, FBJS
>    - DNS-based trust, proxied by "container" site
>
> [image: Client-side Dynamic Mash-up]
>
>    - One site creates content which includes requests for content to
>    other sites, or for information provided by the client
>    - Content is assembled dynamically on the client, based on content
>    from multiple places
>    - Trust based on a combination of "user grant", enforcement of
>    restrictions such as SOP, and other techniques (CORS, UMP, OAuth et al)
>
>
I think what's key is that the AWWW resist pressures to pick winners and
losers in trust.  There should be a loose coupling between the trust system
employed and web.  When trust systems get closely coupled to an
architecture, it is potentially problematic.  IMHO it should even be
possible to use an 'honor system'.
Received on Monday, 17 December 2012 00:09:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 17 December 2012 00:09:38 GMT