- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:50:45 -0500
- To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
I think that "alternate" makes sense in some cases, but agree it shouldn't be required. e.g. a weather widget linked from a weather service, or a stock quote widget from a stock quote service. rel="alternate widget" would be ideal in those situations. Mark. On 11/24/06, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote: > > Hi, > The current draft defines that rel="alternate" should be used for > autodiscovery of widgets [1]. I think that is a mistake because a > widget isn't necessarily an alternate representation of the document. > In fact, in most cases, it won't be. Consider a site like Apple's > Dashboard widget download page [2], which lists many widgets for > download, none of which are alternatives of that page. > > I propose that a new "widget" value be defined for that purpose instead. > > <link rel="widget" type="application/widget" > href="/example.widget" title="An Example Widget"> > > I also think the value should be allowed on <a> elements as well, and > autodiscovery should work for such links. Since authors are usually > going to include a link to the widget somewhere in the page, it's > redundant to require that each one also be specified > > <a href="/example.widget" rel="widget">An Example Widget</a> > > The value also makes the use of the type attribute optional, since UAs > can just recognise the widget value. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-widgets-20061109/#autodiscovery > [2] http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/ > > -- > Lachlan Hunt > http://lachy.id.au/ > >
Received on Monday, 27 November 2006 01:50:53 UTC