- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:24:16 +0200
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> wrote: > 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). Yes, exactly. We've (the WG) have had this in mind for a long time. We've just never got around to putting the new spec together. Anyway, lets finish the core functionality and then move onto the UI "should"s. -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 31 August 2009 10:25:21 UTC