- From: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 01:27:52 -0700
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, ifette@google.com, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote: > W3C's widget specs are mature (i.e., most at CR or LC) and the working > group believes them to be technically sound and, with a few > extensions, able to meet the use cases of [2] (particularly in light > of Google using the crx format to package applications - which is more > or less identical on a conceptual level to the W3C Widget work). Note: CRX was modified to support this use case. I don't think W3C widgets would work without similar modifications. Namely the <content> element would need to support absolute URLs, and a few other similar changes. I'm not sure what effects this would have on the rest of the spec, or if it is desirable. - a
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 08:28:21 UTC