- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:33:35 +0200
- To: "Scott Wilson" <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosc@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:26:15 +0200, Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote: > These are common practices that are ready to be standardised to > realize a benefit for widget developers and widget users. > > The argument of "user agents having to support two storage mechanisms > for widgets" is a strawman: the cost for a UA to support the Widget > Preferences (Storage) API and wire it to their existing storage > implementation is trivial. Maybe. It still increases QA cost (e.g. is the storage limit per API per widget or per widget, etc.) and confuses developers who have to pick one or the other. > However, the cost for widget developers to have to code multiple times > for different UAs - and the opportunity cost to users and UAs where > developers simply don't bother and end up sticking to developing for a > single UA - is far greater. You will have this problem regardless of how you solve this issue if you do not also require a specific scripting language, markup language, etc. > The only debate is whether to standardize the existing practice (Apple/ > Nokia/Opera method signatures) or attempt to harmonise with future > practice (use Web Storage method signatures). -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 6 April 2009 14:34:22 UTC