- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:29:09 +0200
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Aug 30, 2009, at 18:54 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >>> Oh yeah, explaining why would help:) Like with the UI product from >>> the >>> prev email, this UA does not execute or deal with scripts. It only >>> deals with processing config.xml and zip files. It should not behave >>> as a policy enforcement point. >> >> I think this requirement isn't appropriate for what we should >> consider a >> strict P+C UA. As such, this bug could be addressed in a number of >> ways >> including making the text non-normative, removing the text from the >> spec, >> etc. >> >> The text could also be included in a document that describes or >> defines a >> Widget [runtime] User Agent. > > I've requested that Robin add this text to the Widget URI spec. I > think this text should live there for now, until we see if we have > enough requirements to make a Widget UA spec. Actually I think that the two issues should be kept separate. This may have a room in the WURI spec because it's about enforcing access rules for certain URIs. I tend to think that the WUA spec is different: it's what you conform to if you're a UA. It would include some UI shoulds, and arguably a pointer to all the specs in the family (i.e. it could be the profile spec). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 09:29:53 UTC