we could do that... On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:26 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote:
> I like that idea! lzt=widget > > On 2010-08-05, at 19:01, Raju Bitter wrote: > > > Yes, agree with Tucker. If you want a SOLO app, an index.html is a > > good option as well. > > > > But when you are testing widgets, it would come in handy to be able to > > generate the whole widget packet exploded into one folder, returning > > the config.xml. That's the way you could directly load an OL app into > > a browser emulator like Ripple. Using lzt=widget for example. > > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:37 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes we should do this. > >> > >> See http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-9148 > >> > >> I think it is right to use index.html. It seems much more likely that > someone will be making a widget than a solo app. If they are really making > a solo app, they are more likely to be writing a custom wrapper page. > >> > >> On 2010-08-05, at 15:32, Henry Minsky wrote: > >> > >>> The W3C widget format is a standard, and very close to what we're > emitting > >>> for SOLO zip archives. > >>> > >>> Should we just switch the SOLO deployer scripts over to the W3C format > ? > >>> > >>> The only difference that I can see at the moment Opera (the only > browser > >>> that runs widgets that I know of) > >>> requires currently that the start file be named as "index.html", > whereas > >>> we've been making the solo deployer generate > >>> a file named "yourapp.lzx.html". > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Henry Minsky > >>> Software Architect > >>> [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > > -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [email protected]
