- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:51:58 +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 4:47 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: > On Jul 6, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> On 7/6/09 3:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote: >>> 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"? > > Sorry, by "this" I mean the ability for a widget to check if there > exists a new version of itself. I can see value in the UA doing that on > its own, at intervals and criteria (not if I'm roaming, more often if it > crashed recently, etc) that can be set by the user. The UA would then > provide a consistent UI indicating that an update is available and > getting permission from the user (or just doing it, if allowed to do so). > > The value in allowing authors to add <blink color='red'>Update!</blink> > seems rather limited to me, is what I'm saying. Ok, I'm with you now. Yes, I agree it's a bit useless. Besides, the same thing can be easily done with XHR if need be. I say we kill "checkForUpdate()" as it gives back no useful info.
Received on Monday, 6 July 2009 14:52:52 UTC