Many thanks for the feedback - comments inline. Regards,
Mark >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >On Behalf Of timeless >Sent: 21 February 2009 18:28 >To: Priestley, Mark, VF-Group >Cc: public-webapps >Subject: Re: [widgets] A revised proposal on widget modes > >On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group ><[email protected]> wrote: >> I'm not stuck on the names of the viewmodes and their >respective elements. >> For example, I am inclined to agree with one of the earlier comments >> that "maximised" might be a better name for "fullscreen". > >i'd like to offer a preemptive veto of maximised. it's not the >correct spelling in en-US, and anything which is likely to be >misspelled is a bad start. > Fine by me ><viewmodes default="floating/fullscreen/docked"> > >it's hard to tell if you mean that you can specify one of >those, or if / is ok. And there's the minor issue of what >happens if a certain WUA only supports some of the modes and >the widget is only allowed to specify one. > Sorry - my example wasn't clear. I meant that the widget author could declare the widgets preferred mode of operation, therefore they would only specify a single value which would be one of the defined keywords. >I think i'd rather startview="x,y" where there's some rule for >whether the first or last supported view is handled. > >I'd probably prefer: > > <mode name="floating" height="300" width="500"/> > > <mode name="fullscreen" max-height="500" max-width="600"/> > >for the child element, i suspect it's easier to deal w/ validation. > Marcos has pointed out some other issues with specifying height and width and so this probably needs rethinking anyway. However, if not, I agree your proposal is preferable.
