W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [widgets] WARP usability issue

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 13:54:58 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinaQpNV+S-hkzk8sna7x3H-UNEAhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@gmail.com>, Wojciech Masłowski <wmaslowski@opera.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Marcos Caceres
<marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/11 1:38 PM, timeless wrote:
>> 2011/5/12 Marcos Caceres<marcosscaceres@gmail.com>:
>>> The following rule is too restrictive in WARP:
>>> "If origin is not a valid IRI, *if it has components other than scheme
>>> and iauthority*, if it has no host component, or if it has a iuser
>>> info component, then this element is in error and the user agent must
>>> ignore this element."
>>> For the "if it has components other than scheme and iauthority" part,
>>> this means that a developer who writes:
>>> "http://www.w3.org/"
>>> Will have their access request ignored because of the slash. While I
>>> was at Opera working on extensions, we noticed in the Opera Extensions
>>> catalog that people were doing all sorts of "interesting" things with
>>> WARP declarations (e.g., adding "/*" and other things assuming some
>>> kind of pattern matching).
>>> Anyway, an easy solution is to simply ignore any "/" or simply ignore
>>> all but the scheme and iauthority.
>>> WDYT?
>> Shouldn't validators / markets automatically send an error with a
>> suggested fix instead of allowing publication?
> did you just say "the tools will save us?" :) It's better to avoid confusion
> altogether and make this a bit more liberal, me thinks.
>> Could you provide an actual example instance? I'm guessing you can
>> point to a public widget and a public server.
> I'll try to find something on http://www.operaextensions.com

here is a funny one:

(that one is beyond help:))

>> As it's origin based, and new, I think it's best to try to push
>> producers to create correct content.
> This is true, but it's a bit mean to punish developers because of a simple
> slash.
>> I really wish that UAs and markets would provide a way for UAs and
>> Users to provide feedback about bugs to Authors. On the Web, that's
>> impossible, but for things where there are aggregators who collect
>> content and require accounts for uploading, it seems like it should be
>> a lot easier to manage.
> Tools will get there, I'm sure.
>> Certainly for addons.mozilla.org, it's possible for site admins to
>> give feedback to extension authors about Bugs, Errors, Code Quality,
>> and general user feedback.
> Opera's system pretty much does the same for extensions.
>> For Ovi, there were plans (no idea what happened to them, I presume
>> they're still there) to perform automated tests before providing them
>> to customers.
> Opera checks JS code manually and configs automatically against the P&C
> schema. However, RelaxNG schema checks can't check the level of granularity
> required here (i.e., at the URI specific level).
>> For a widget, that should involve trying to install it
>> into a user agent, and probably poking a couple of coordinates or
>> buttons. It should be possible to recognize errors during testing for
>> average cases and give feedback before the widget is made available to
>> customers.
> The problem is more developers getting put off thinking that the widget
> engine is broken or they go crazy trying to find out what the bug is that is
> not allowing WARP to work.... when it turns out to be just a slash.
>> Apple's store submission process seems to involve at least some
>> automatic and some manual testing. I presume most stores will have
>> similar processes. So it seems like this should be something which a
>> testing UA should be able to detect and report, and which a
>> Store/MarketPlace should be able to manage. UAs should also be able to
>> collect anonymous reporting statistics and offer their users the
>> option of sending them to their widget vendors.
>> If a WARP failure is causing the widget to break, then the user is
>> likely to be unhappy and the user would probably want to send the
>> negative feedback.
> This affects devs, instead of users most of the time. WARP simply wont work,
> so users will remain unaffected... that is, unless one engine allows "/", as
> Opera currently does... which will lead to interop fun.
>> Having a channel for sending feedback is a good thing, for Widgets,
>> for Applications, and for web pages. And getting vendors in the habit
>> of handling such feedback by providing basic instances where it is
>> likely to happen seems like a good stepping stone to a healthier
>> ecosystem.
> Agreed. But as I have argued, this issue stings devs long before they submit
> things to an app store. It makes app development just that little bit more
> annoying.

Marcos Caceres
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:03:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:19 UTC