Re: [widgets] WARP usability issue

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:43 PM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Opera does this ATM (validates configs in the browser and sends
warnings/errors to the error console).

>> 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.

The problem is that they did that already because they had a bug in
the original implementation. To change it would break content in the
extension catalog.

>> 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.

I'm ok with leaving it as is... but I guess we will have to see what
runtimes end up doing. Opera has already willfully violated the spec.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 13:18:27 UTC