- From: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:29:15 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- CC: Daniel Buchner <daniel@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos Caceres wrote: > > > On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, JC Verdié 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. We're talking about long-lasting history here :) I'd need to ask the developers from this time if they do remember what's been the biggest problems. Stay tuned. >> 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. Agreed. But it's been a hurdle and I don't know how many companies just gave up about widgets because of this. >> 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 13:29:56 UTC