- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:25:25 +0200
- To: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
- CC: Marcin Hanclik <Marcin.Hanclik@access-company.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Scott Wilson wrote: > Hmm, I raised this one too. > > I can't see how the origin handles instances exactly, and the concept of > "origin" doesn't seem all that relevant to our implementation anyway - > it looks more like something for browser makers to worry over? > > Why is "origin of a widget" preferable to "instance of widget"? > > This could be important as some conformance statements relate to the > concept, e.g: > > Upon getting <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting> the > |preferences| attribute, the user agent > <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#user-agent> /must/ return a > |Storage <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage0>| object that > represents the storage area > <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage-area> for the origin of > a widget <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#origin-of-a-widget>. > > If "origin of a widget" is not a sensible concept for the UA (as opposed > to widget instance), does this fail conformance? How would you test for > it for the UA anyway? Ok, I've trashed the "origin of widget" concept. I need to write a proper definition of widget instance. I'll check in a new draft soon.
Received on Thursday, 1 October 2009 10:26:01 UTC