- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:07:35 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
On 7/6/09 3:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > Hey Marcos, > > On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> The purpose of widget.update() is/was _not_ to "update" the widget in >> any meaningful way: >> (...) >> In other words, it was/is a means to for a widget to ask the Widget >> User Agent if an update is available from the remote location >> addressed by the update element's href attribute (so, really it should >> have been called "checkForUpdate()" or "updateInfo = new >> UpdateChecker()", which the example begins to elude to). As it says in >> the spec, "_actually performing the update is left to the discretion >> of the widget user agent._" > > Thanks for the clarification. This however does not strike me as > something that is vitally useful. What's "this"? > Is there really a strong use case > backing this? I'd much rather see updates entirely handled by the UA > (with or without the sulphurous smell coming from Apple when one > mentions this topic) as they are generally in a better position to > handle this correctly (from within the UA context we'd have to handle > the fact that it might clash with <access>, that the response isn't > boolean, etc. and people would likely get that wrong, were they to use > this feature). Sorry Robin, you've totally lost me :( Can we start from the beginning again? Kind regards, Marcos
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:08:25 UTC