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

Re: [widgets] WARP usability issue

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 15:43:32 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTinDOAqKdQkghjvyjziFW8wN16mzpg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@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 2:50 PM, Marcos Caceres
<marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> did you just say "the tools will save us?" :)

i did,  did!

> It's better to avoid confusion
> altogether and make this a bit more liberal, me thinks.

i think we risk people thinking that paths are allowed and meaningful.
i'd rather avoid that confusion up front.

> This is true, but it's a bit mean to punish developers because of a simple
> slash.

there's a path to the dark side, and i think you're approaching it :).

> Tools will get there, I'm sure.


> Opera's system pretty much does the same for extensions.


> 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).

It seems like a WARP validator (whatever that might be) should be able
to handle this if it's able to see the content in the first place.

> 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.

Sounds like UAs need an authoring/debugging mode with better error reporting.

> 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.

Grr. please don't do that, slippery slopes like this / races to the
bottom are really unfair to everyone else.

> 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.

Sounds like a problem that a little education (samples, FAQ/gotchas),
and a little UA reporting for authors help should address. Ideally UAs
should be able to recognize when an author is authoring (perhaps
because the widget is unsigned?)

I really don't think relaxing the syntax is the right path forward.
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 12:44:01 UTC

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