- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:19:55 +1000
- To: "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "WAF WG (public)" <public-appformats@w3.org>
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > On 2008-05-28 11:25:03 +0200, Arve Bersvendsen wrote: > >> 1. In the case that any security-related settings for the widget >> changes, they can be reviewed automatically, or optionally >> manually by the user, and download of an updated resource can be >> prevented if the updated version is not acceptable. This is >> particularily important on slow connections, since some widgets >> run into the megabyte range > > This goes back full-circle to the question whether the > metainformation (including signature and capabilities) should be > within the zip archive, or in a separate outside file. > > My gut feeling is that the update descriptor is going to end up > looking *very* similar to the manifest, in the end of the day. I disagree. There is only a tiny bit of overlap that is needed to do the version and ID comparison. > I'm ultimately indifferent as to whether that description file > should be inside or outside the widget; I'd just prefer us to avoid > duplication of information there. So would I. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 10:20:41 UTC