Re: javascript manifests in webapps group

On Sat, 12 May 2012 13:32:54 +0200, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 21:25, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
>> Thanks Charles,
>>
>> I've seen this format before, and it can potentially be aligned with  
>> Widgets, e.g.
> I would be keen to see them align. They are basically the same.
>> 1. Rename properties to match their direct equivalents in Widgets P&C  
>> (e.g. developer -> author, screen_size:min_width -> width etc)

Hmm. To go from one to the other you already need a translation, so I  
don't think a difference in the names is critical. Developers will make  
mistakes, but there is also a question of whether we're better with the  
XML names, or the JSON names - and maybe we should start with the two  
different ones then pave the cowpaths that get accidentally trodden.

(Dublin Core has an issue like this. They have a property Creator, and no  
Property Author. But any system that wants to work with dublin core found  
in the wild has to handle the "oficially non-existent" dc:author because  
it is often used by developers. It turns out not to be a huge hassle in  
the medium term, just a minor annoyance and a reminder why we do standards  
in the first place).

>> 2. Feature names should be IRIs as in WIdgets rather than strings
>
> I think we made a boo-boo in widgets by using URIs for feature names.

Not sure. They are common still in some patterns, and have some noted  
advantages. Maybe we'd be better to leave the dereferenceable URIs in  
public for XML P&C, and include in the translation to JSON a  
simplification from URI to plain words.

> This should just be an opaque string (URIs that can be dereferenced s  
> suck as identifiers).

That said, the design pattern I have been using at opera is to mint  
opera:feature URIs. Which is a dirty hack - neither dereferenceable, nor a  
beautiful word. It just mewts validation requirements

>> 3. Orientation and fullscreen needs harmonizing with viewmodes
>
> Viewmodes doesn't really handle orientation, it should be handled by the  
> device adaption CSS spec:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-device-adapt/#the-lsquoorientationrsquo-descriptor
>
>
>> 4. Add any missing properties defined in P&C and TWI such as license,  
>> short_name
>
> agreed.
>> I think also the app store registry, lifecycle and events would be  
>> better split out from the JSON manifest spec.

Yeah, I don't see that "which spec things are in" is a particularly  
crucial question, and anyone prepared to die on that hill is focused on  
the wrong things. The events seem to make more sense as part of an update  
to the Widget Interface - and in any case would be good for both JSON and  
XML packaged apps, IMHO.

>> All doable I think if Mozilla are happy to be flexible on this.
>
> I imagine/hope they would be, otherwise it's pointless to push for  
> standardisation if only one company backs the format (that's just  
> standardisation for marketing reasons).

Right.

cheers

-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2012 11:56:27 UTC