W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Call for Input: Use Cases and Requirements for Widgets Access Request spec

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 06:39:53 -0400
Message-Id: <1CCBB6D2-F344-4879-A090-691F2943780D@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>, ext Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
On May 22, 2009, at 5:30 AM, ext Arve Bersvendsen wrote:

> On Fri, 22 May 2009 11:17:26 +0200, Scott Wilson
> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com> wrote:
> [About use-cases and requirements for widgets access requests]
>> Is there a particular preferred format for submitting use cases?
> Not that I know of, but I would much prefer to see one thread per  
> use-case
> on this list, so they can be discussed separately, and also  
> discussed as
> separate items in phone conferences.

I think a high priority is to get useful information and as such, I  
am willing to take just about anything you can provide.

If by format you mean text vs HTML vs PDF, etc., my preference in  
order is HTML, text, PDF.

If by format you mean should we follow the pattern we used in widgets- 
reqs [1], or OWL [2], or some other methodology (e.g. [3]), I am  
mostly indifferent and again come back to the point of getting useful  
info. I don't think you should feel constrained to "shoehorn" your  
information into the relatively constrained pattern we used in [1]  
nor should you feel obligated to do something comprehensive (e.g.  
[3]). Perhaps the OWL pattern is an acceptable middle ground.

BTW, +1 to Arve's suggestion for a separate thread per UC.

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/webont-req/#section-use-cases>
[3] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case#Use_case_templates>
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 10:41:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC