- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:31:26 +0200
- To: ifette@google.com
- CC: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 30/04/10 6:36 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) wrote: > Am 30. April 2010 00:26 schrieb Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com > <mailto:marcosc@opera.com>>: > > > Hi Ian, > > On Apr 30, 2010, at 8:09 AM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) > <ifette@google.com <mailto:ifette@google.com>> wrote: > >> Disclaimer: I really don't care about this particular spec given >> the politics and think that it is likely not to go anywhere as-is. >> So take my feedback for what it's worth. > > I don't know who is feeding you ideas about "politics", but there is > nothing contraversial about the Widget specs. If you know something > I don't, then please tell us. Also, last I checked there were over > 40 companies backing widgets. Just because Google ain't backing them > right now does not mean they are going nowhere. > >> >> This is not bikeshedding, nor are many of the previous threads >> that have brought up issues with this spec and body of work in >> general. This is not "I prefer my favorite random compression >> algorithm," this is "a serious performance issue is caused for >> loading any large widget that is packed in such a manner because >> we can't do anything until the entire file is downloaded." > > If this was true, then why does chrome use Zip for browser > extensions? They are almost exactly the same as W3C widgets in every > way. > > > Because > a) there's not a sense of starting to render an extension before it's > installed, > b) and it's installed or not installed atomically. > c) they are installed and updated in the background, not necessarily > embedded on a page I would say widgets are as above, but... > On the other hand, a widget on a page could certainly be rendered > optimistically. But this is also true. Though required <feature>s in the widget config document could cause a widget to be treated as unsupported. So streamability would only work for a particular subset of widgets. >> Maybe some people don't care about performance, and if a lack of >> concern for performance is part of the use cases, then such a >> decision is perfectly valid according to the use cases. > > We care about making a generic packaging format that everyone can > make (not just people on *nix). > > > And I was not advocating for a specific algorithm, I was objecting to > someone taking a valid criticism with technical backing and calling it > bikeshedding. I agree with you. I don't think this is a bikeshedding discussion either. Lets talk more about use cases and requirements. > fwiw though, taking tar/gzip as an example, it is not exactly hard for a > web author to deal with a tar file. It's no more difficult than installing a browser I guess. I won't say "the tools will save us". > Google has been actively encouraged to participate in this work from > the beginning. It's not our fault Google didn't want to contribute > this as a use case. > > > No, it's not. That doesn't mean that valid criticisms should be > dismissed as bikeshedding, or that people should cling to a notion of > being "too late". We aren't clinging to Gears saying it's too late, > we're not even really clinging to Web SQL DB - we are actively moving > forward on Web Indexed DB and are very involved in discussions on how to > improve the offline storage situation. So, frankly, I really don't buy > the "it's too late" argument for any of this. Again, 1. it's too late for P&C because the W3C process forbids us from adding more stuff to it. Please see: http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#cfi There is just no way we are dropping that back to Working Draft. There are too many people that have implemented the spec and it serves a different use case. 2. Please forget the whole widgets thing. Lets just focus on use cases and requirements. We can certainly define a "Streamable Packaging Format For Web Applications" or whatever we want. If it uses part of Widgets, then yay! if not, who cares. -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 17:32:07 UTC