Marcos Caceres a écrit : > >From the spec "...an author can request that a widget asynchronously > check if a widget has been updated [(i.e., that a new version of the > widget package is available online)] via the widget.update() method, > defined in the Widgets-API specification. This strategy also relies on > the author having declared a update element in the widget > configuration document, as it makes use of the URI to potentially > retrieve an UDD and relay whether an update is available back to the > instantiated Widget. ***Actually performing the update is left to the > discretion of the widget user agent.**"* > JCD: this standards trick works if your aim is to have a patent on the highlighted point be judged as non-essential. There are a few points to check to ensure non-essentiality: - the language of the standard makes the feature a MAY (seems to be the case); - no test case uses the feature (should be easy too). However, if the implementations consistently implement the feature, they will infringe the patent and will get a call from the patent holder. It seems to me that this feature may end up as "consistently implemented". There would then be a good case for the WG to spend some time on devising a proper workaround. Anyone sharing my opinion that the widget update feature will be consistenly implemented (even if optional) ? Best regards JC -- JC Dufourd Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing Télécom ParisTech, 46 rue Barrault, 75 013 Paris, France
Received on Wednesday, 15 July 2009 11:54:43 UTC