Re: [Widgets] Brief feedback

Hi Ed,
Thanks for being the first to comment on the draft:-)

I also agree with Ed in relation to the root node maybe being called 
something other than <widget> (for the sake of accommodating all 
vendors). Some alternative names off the top of my head:

* <application>, or
* <component>, or
* <about>, or
* <manifest>, or
* <metadata>, or
* <configuration>

Anyone else got any suggestions? 

Regarding initial width and height... On the one hand, I agree with Ed 
in relation to them not being part of the manifest as these elements 
should be considered style, not metadata. On the other hand, those of us 
who worked on the requirements document thought that it might be a good 
idea to have these elements in the manifest as a way of preempting the 
size of a widget before it is loaded. Our motivations for these elements 
were primarily to do with device independence. Given that the Widgets 
1.0 is based on Opera's config format for their widgets, I cannot 
comment as to why or how Opera uses <width> and <height>. Regardless, 
I'm easy either way with these elements as the initial size of a widget 
is usually irrelevant as they can dynamically grow in width and height 
(and position).

Regarding security, this is obviously a very complex area and we are 
looking at how all the different vendors have approached issues of 
widget security. It would be great to hear Yahoo!'s position on widget 
security. What do you feel is important for this area? Have 
Konfabulator's user's or development community raised particular issues 
about security?

Kind regards,
Marcos


Ed Voas wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Just read the specification for Widgets 1.0. In particular, I'm 
> interested in the config.xml file and format. It was only yesterday 
> that I had sent out an email internally here that called for adding a 
> manifest to our Konfabulator engine which has almost everything the 
> current spec has (except for width and height, as I don't believe that 
> belongs there, as I view that file as metadata, not anything that 
> would affect the DOM).
>
> Interested in seeing more around the security block in particular. I 
> only have vague ideas on what should be there, and it looks like you 
> do too :-)
>
> Also, should the document root node really be called <widget> in that 
> file? We already use that for our main XML file, as Widget is the top 
> of our DOM.
>
> -- Ed
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 05:44:39 UTC