- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:36:26 +0100
- To: David Rogers <david.rogers@omtp.org>
- CC: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 3/9/09 2:19 PM, David Rogers wrote: > Marcos, > > As mentioned in the F2F, this is one of the reasons you can see why you need to look at defining content types more closely - you need to decide what a widget 'is' otherwise we're potentially in trouble. > > I agree with Rainer's point about policy. > Well, this change defines a widget as: * zip file * has one config at root * config file has at least one tag (<widget>) * <widget> tag MUST be in widget namespace. * has one start file (either a default) To complement the above, on the Web, a widget is also identified by its media type (applicaiton/widget) and on disk by its file extension (.wgt). That's a widget :) Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 13:37:08 UTC