Re: Items not listed as "new" in the draft charter

Hi Maciej,

On 26/03/10 3:24 AM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:02 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
>
>> Hi Maciej,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
> The Widgets Embedding spec is described as "a mechanism to allow
> embedding of packaged applications within other Web content, such as
> referencing via the HTML object element."
 >
> It looks like in 2008 it was moved to a non-normative appendix, and
> specified as a form of autodiscovery based on <a rel> rather than direct
> live embedding based on <object>:
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-widgets-20080414/#embedding> (the 2007
> draft had only a section heading, so it's not clear to me what it had in
> mind.

We already made it clear what we had in mind. Embedding into web pages - 
like with <object>. If you would have participated, you would know that. 
Discovery is not embedding. We always knew we wanted a separate spec for 
embedding, hence widgets beings defined as embeddable.

> It seems to me like relative to that (as well as relative to all WDs
> published under the current charter), it is fair to call it "new", as
> the current draft charter does already. I could see the argument for
> describing it differently, but I have no quarrel with the charter
> identifying it as new work.

Great! :)

>> And widgets have been clearly defined as being embeddable since the
>> "Working Draft 14 April 2008" [1]:
>>
>> "Widgets are a class of client-side web application for displaying and
>> updating local or remote data, packaged in a way to allow a single
>> download and installation on a client machine or device. Widgets
>> typically run as stand alone applications outside of a web browser,
>> but it is possible to embed them into web pages."
>>
>> I think I will extend this definition to make sure it's clear that
>> Widgets are a perfect solution for distributing other HTML5/SVG based
>> multimedia content, such as interactive books and audiovisual
>> experiences that people can keep locally, forever.
>>
>> We would love Apple to participate more pro-actively in this work. It
>> would be beneficial to everyone to have a royalty free general
>> packaging format for client-side web applications/multimedia content.
>>
>> What do you think, Maciej? do you think Apple could support this work
>> and help us get this to Rec?
>
> Apple has chosen not to participate in Widgets standards work at the
> W3C.

That's not true, Apple has directly influenced and participated in the 
work: remember [1], and the others fun exclusions of late (I think one 
even has your name on it). Of course, Apple is free to exclude whatever 
it wants... but this seems in contradiction to the "Apple Computer's 
Statement on the Draft W3C Patent Policy" [2]. Remember the bit about:

"Apple supports a W3C patent policy with an immutable commitment to 
royalty-free licensing for fundamental Web standards. Apple offers this 
statement in support of its position."

If Apple no longer supports the W3C's mission and patent policy, you 
should probably ask that [2] now be taken down (then happily continue to 
exclude patents willy-nilly, as is Apple's right as a W3C member). Or is 
it that Apple alone gets to decide what constitutes a "fundamental web 
standard" and not the W3C community?

> Let me be very clear that I am reporting this as Apple's current
> position, not as a personal position, or as something I endorse, or as
> something for which I care to make a personal case.

Understood. Still, you can always help out as a private individual. 
Individuals always have the choice to do the *right thing*, Maciej. 
Don't let anyone bully you, specially a company. If you want to work for 
a company to that values individuals, I'm sure we can find you something 
at Opera;)

> I can only
> communicate this position, it is not within my authority to change our
> approach on this.

That's sad, but ok. Just keep trying - you are a really smart and 
influential guy, I'm sure they will listen to you.

> Nor am I authorized to make any announcements about
> our future plans in this general area.

I totally respect that. I don't think that was ever asked of you or Apple.

> If you'd like to make the case
> that Apple should support W3C Widgets, then I would suggest you go
> through channels such as Apple World Wide Developer Relations.

Good idea! Perhaps you could put in a good word internally?

> Given Apple's position, I don't think it is helpful to give my personal
> thoughts about Widgets. I would not want to do anything that might
> directly result in the spec including Apple IP.

Heaven forbid, no. Helping create a non-proprietary platform for 
developing client-side applications using Web technology would be a 
terrible thing for Apple to be involved with:P

But seriously, hope you guys change your mind. We are working on great 
stuff here, and we would all love Apple to be part of it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/03/widgets-pag/pagreport.html
[2] http://www.apple.com/about/w3c/

-- 
Marcos Caceres
Opera Software

Received on Friday, 26 March 2010 10:30:07 UTC