- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:24:22 +0100
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Thomas Landspurg <thomas.landspurg@gmail.com>, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2009, at 08:33 , Thomas Landspurg wrote: >> >> Good suggestion. I think RSS/Atom is well adapted for new widgets >> publication. I think that keeping the platform attribute is interesting, >> because we - as many - we will have to support different format for some >> time. > > The issue I see with that is that it would require defining a platform, > which can get to be somewhat complex (operating system, version, intel/ppc, > 32/64/128bits, etc.) and if it is going to be of any general use then the > vocabulary for platform specification needs to be specified — i.e. you can't > "just" have a platform element or attribute, you also need to define its > values in such a way that all can understand them. Agreed. > As a result I'd tend to suggest that we punt on this, and people who need to > have the platform specified can use an extension in their own namespace. Agreed. Thinking forward, how do you recommend we identify version 2.0 of the widget configuration file format (or should we just cross that bridge when we get to it?) ? -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:24:59 UTC