- From: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:56:45 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- CC: marcosc@opera.com, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
Dear Robin, Thanks for your email. Robin Berjon a écrit : > >> 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) ? > > You seem to be mixing up Widget Updates and the update() method, is > that the case? JCD: I understood the widget.update() method being discussed to be the scripted version of the Widget Updates mechanism. Please tell me if I am wrong. The current draft seems to still say that. And I am really not sure that a script-triggered version of the update mechanism can be discarded off-hand. Best regards JC PS: test sequences may be informative, but their content defines what is tested for normative behavior, so if a feature is tested in a sequence, it will appear normative to lawyers, even if the text of the spec says otherwise. -- 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 15:57:18 UTC