- From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 07:26:49 -0500
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, www-archive@w3.org
Hi Thomas, On Jan 27, 2009, at 7:20 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: > Hi Art, > > I think I heard you say something different at the workshop, which is > why I'm pinging you... > > I think that there are a few places where this requirement goes beyond > what's in the Design Goals, and also beyond Motherhood and Apple Pie > -- specifically, reusability of the signature framework for Web > Applications (this one should be relatively easy), and resource > identification, i.e., the pesky URI scheme debate (this one is less > likely to be easy). I'm concerned about broadening the scope of the Widgets v1.0 specs beyond the UCs and requirements we have already documented in Widgets 1.0: Requirements LCWD. As I said in the Workshop, I'm not interested in rat-holing on "What is Web Application?" and I certainly don't want such discussions to delay the Widgets v1.0 specs. So sure, if you want to add a bunch of new reqs to the Widgets Requirements v2.0 spec, that's OK with me. -Art > > > Cheers, > -- > Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> > > > > > > > > On 27 Jan 2009, at 13:02, Arthur Barstow wrote: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> I'm not convinced there is a need to explicitly capture such a >> Motherhood and Apple Pie requirement? >> >> IMHO, the Design Goals as codified in the Reqs doc [1] e.g. >> Compatibility with other standards, Interoperability, etc. are >> sufficient. Agreed? >> >> -Art >> >> [1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/#design> >> >> >> On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:54 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote: >> >>> Hi Art, Marcos, >>> >>> as you'll remember, there was pretty strong agreement in the room at >>> the December workshop that widget technologies should stay as close >>> as >>> possible to Webapps, and that no gratuitous differences should be >>> part >>> of the technology. At the time, you said that this is a requirement >>> that should go into the Widgets requirements draft. Has that >>> happened? >>> >>> FYI, here's the text that I'm currently planning to have in the >>> workshop report: >>> >>>> <p>Workshop participants strongly agreed that APIs and security >>>> models used for widgets and more classical Web applications should >>>> be aligned as closely as possible. This requirement is expected to >>>> apply to current and future work in the <a href="http:// >>>> www.w3.org/2008/webapps/ >>>> ">Web Applications Working Group</a>, and to additional work that >>>> might be chartered as a result of this workshop.</p> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> -- >>> Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 27 January 2009 12:27:42 UTC