Re: [widgets] feature: inconsistent behavior ?

Le 06/01/2010 20:46, Marcos Caceres a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Scott Wilson
> <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Jan 2010, at 10:08, Cyril Concolato wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you misunderstood me.
>>>
>>> There is a difference between an 'unsupported'/'unavailable' feature as
>>> 'foo:bar' in your example and an 'invalid feature name' as in the test-suite
>>> example:
>>>
>>> <widget>
>>> <name>d4</name>
>>> <feature name="invalid feature IRI" required="true"/>
>>> </widget>
>>>
>>> I'm not asking that 'unsupported'/'unavailable' features are ignored as
>>> indeed this would contradict the default value of 'required'. I'm asking
>>> that 'invalid' feature are ignored (whether they are required or not). This
>>> would be consistent with the rest of the spec.
>>
>>
>> If a feature is required by the widget, and it isn't available for any
>> reason (including an invalid IRI) then its reasonable for the UA to assume
>> this Widget just won't work and reject it. It may simply be a typo, e.g.:
>>
>> <feature name="http;//bondi.omtp.org/api/camera.capture" required="true"/>
>>                                     ^ typo!
>>
>> I don't think it would be useful for this to silently fail.
>>
>
> FWIW, I agree with Scott. However, Cyril's point is valid in the the
> behavior is a bit inconstant with the spec... but, as Scott has shown
> through his example, it's with good reason.
Now that I understand the rationale, I'm fine to leave it as is. It just means that the spec will not be extensible to features not named with IRI. I don't know if in Robin's v27 of the spec, there won't be a different way to name features.

Regards,

Cyril

-- 
Cyril Concolato
Maître de Conférences/Associate Professor
Groupe Mutimedia/Multimedia Group
Telecom ParisTech
46 rue Barrault
75 013 Paris, France
http://concolato.blog.telecom-paristech.fr/

Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 15:11:04 UTC