On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:50 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> WARP is a split from P+C, its ancestor is in the first draft. > > Sounds fine to document it that way, since the precursor is not clear from backtracking through "previous version" links of WARP. Yeah, the absence of a link is a bug on my part, I'll fix that. >> The Widget URI scheme was initially intended for P+C (as can be seen from the TBD section in older drafts) but the content wasn't written up before it was branched. > > That sounds like a new document to me. But either way, documenting its origin would be fine. I think the first trace of it is in http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#addressing. After that, people started talking with the TAG I presume (I wasn't in the WG during that period). >> View modes were also in the 2008 P+C draft, but either way they probably shouldn't be listed as a widget deliverable considering that they can be used in even broader contexts (as requested by the CSS WG). > > Maybe it should be renamed to not include "Widgets" in the title, and not be identified as a Widgets deliverable. That would be fine by me. Yes, I believe that might be the plan. >> Essentially there is nothing new in widgets, the plan is simply to finish the existing ongoing work quickly. > > There is at least the new "Widget Embedding" item in the charter (which is indicated as a new item). Actually, it's been considered before :) http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#embedding -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2010 10:52:57 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:05 UTC