Re: [widgets] dropping Asynchronous HTTP Requests and Storage

On Apr 7, 2009, at 12:25 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>  
> wrote:
>> Well, my understanding was that we had to have Web Storage for API  
>> & Events
>> anyway since that's what implements preferences (and we need to  
>> define how
>> it's used so that we can get read-only keys). Even if that's all  
>> there is,
>> it'd be a little bit silly for a UA to support Web Storage for the
>> preferences but not in other contexts.
>
> True. However, Anne seems to be implying that we should not replicate
> functionality available in other context. For example, would a
> (hypothetical) Flash-only Widget UA be expected to implement Storage?
> Or would we mandate that such user agents implement their own solution
> or use whatever means are currently available on the platform
> (whatever that might be for Flash)?

There are two ends to this spectrum: one is developing a toolbox  
technology that can just fit with other technologies, the other is  
defining a platform that developers can author content for in a  
reliable manner.

I don't have a strong opinion on the outcome, but I don't think that  
we should base our decision solely on where some of us think we should  
place the specification on that spectrum — if only because such  
discussions tend to be based mostly on personal preference and  
anecdotal evidence. I think it should stand or fall on the  
requirement's merit, and on what we expect the typical usage to be (as  
opposed to contrived examples). I think that having preferences is a  
required feature for a widget, and I think that the typical cases  
(HTML/SVG content) will support Storage anyway, so there's no harm —  
and in fact extra convenience — in using it for the preferences  
attribute.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/

Received on Tuesday, 7 April 2009 10:52:25 UTC