- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:13:28 +0000
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: public-webapps@w3.org, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Hi Robin, On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2009, at 02:20 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >>> >>> Is there a reason to require any formats? In very few places we do >>> this. For example the HTML and CSS specs don't require support for >>> JPEG, GIF or PNG. Neither HTML or SVG require support for javascript. >>> >>> Is there a reason for the widget spec to be different? >> >> I guess it's not really about mandating that the widget user agent >> support SVG, just that it look for SVG as a default start file. > > My request actually covered both. But apparently you've now removed the > requirement to support HTML, so maybe I can withdraw that part of my > objection. I would prefer if HTML and SVG were both required because it > makes widgets more useful when you know what you can rely on, but I can live > with nothing specific being required. To be clear, formats that need to be supported by a user agent will not be mandated in the Widgets P&C specification, which is only concerned with packaging and configuration. Personally, I would like to see a list of baseline formats that a widget engine should support specified somewhere (e.g., html, svg, png, css, etc.), but that might just have to be left to the market or put into a new specification. Kind regards, Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 4 February 2009 14:14:11 UTC