- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:16:10 +0100
- To: JC VerdiƩ <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
- Cc: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, JC VerdiƩ wrote: > Hi Marcos, > > Obviously as you point out, digsig were a nightmare. May be it was us, > but the spec was not really straightforward to implement and we found it > difficult. As lead Editor, I'm really very sorry about this - I strive to make specs as accessible to everyone as possible, and I'm sorry if what was written was confusing/difficult to interpret. If there are bits that should be clarified, then please let me know and I'll see what I can do to improve it. > On widgets itself, our main issue came from our own constraints (TV > browser with no chrome ui), it lead to some inconsistencies to handle to > overall UX. For instance, the impossibility to handle user events on a > global level so that buttons used for exit or any immediate actions are > not caught up by the widget, but by the "root" application. We hacked in > several ways to achieve this but it was a disappointing point. Right, but this is a platform/system issue (how events traverse through the system). This was outside the scope of the work. > I guess what I'm saying is we missed a wider view of how widgets are > handled, run, die, and interact with the browser itself. > > Despite this, it's been very useful to us and we have deployed many > solutions based on it, so anything that keeps compatibility with widgets > is good to us > Happy to hear.
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2013 13:16:41 UTC