- From: Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 17:45:12 +1000
- To: "Thomas Landspurg" <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-appformats@w3.org
Hi Thomas, On 2/22/07, Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a few questions regarding the current draft: > > - when the paragraph 1.1 will be clarified (relationship to webpage embedded > widgets). The focus of the document seemsl to be clearely desktop widgets, > right? Right. > - relation to mobile: the mobile reference has been made several times, as > well as the "platform independence" notion. From our experience, even if on > the technical point of view you can probably create widgets that can run > easly on web and mobile (a simple clock for instance), it's usually much > more relevent to have different version, because: > - UI is different (no mouse, limited keyboard) > - different input device (camera, bluetooth, voice, etc...) > - usage pattern is different > - technical constraint are differents (memory, CPU speed, etc...) Agreed. That is why the widget spec does not currently deal with UI. In regards to inputs and usage patterns, we are still looking into that. As you have pointed out, it's a very complex problem with many dimensions. > So how do we want to address such problem? Are they two different widgets? > Is it the same widgets with specific case depending of the device? We are unsure at this point too. We are fairly certain that we can at least get the packaging part nailed down, but the rest (UI and APis) is still up in the air. I will be interested to see what the Netvibes guys come up with in regards to their "Universal Widget API". If anyone knows them, it would be great for them to comment on the requirements and the actual spec. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 07:45:28 UTC