Re: [widgets] Comments on the 22-Dec-2008 LCWD of the Widgets 1.0: P&C spec


On Jan 31, 2009, at 8:31 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

> Ok, fair enough. However, I think the words "such as" does not make
> the assertion sound particularly definitive. I think it MUST that
> widget engines support the APIs and a SHOULD that they support updates
> and sigs.
> New text:
> "A widget user agent is a user agent that attempts to implement this
> specification. A widget user agent MUST also support the
> [Widgets-APIs].

Does the P&C spec include any normative assertions that create a  
dependency on the API & Events spec? I just made a quick scan of the  
P&C's latest ED and I did not find any any such statements.

If there are no such dependencies - and my expectation is there  
should not be - then, SHOULD in the second sentence above is the  
strongest statement that can be made. Any of: using MAY, making the  
statement as non-normative text, or removing it altogether would be  
appropriate if there is no such a dependency.

If there is such a dependency, then that's probably a bug we need to  

-Regards, Art Barstow

Received on Saturday, 31 January 2009 14:19:21 UTC