- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:12:56 +0200
- To: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Cc: marcosc@opera.com, 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 May 25, 2010, at 10:27 , Aaron Boodman wrote: > 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. That sort of change wouldn't be very hard to specify, all that would be needed would be a way to disambiguate absolute URLs from the path references (different element, different attribute, different syntax in the existing attribute — all have their trade-offs) designed in such a way as to be backwards compatible. If there's interest, we can certainly look into it! -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:13:31 UTC