On 7/6/09 4:47 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Jul 6, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
On 7/6/09 3:35 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Jun 30, 2009, at 11:24 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
The purpose of widget.update() is/was _not_ to "update" the widget in
any meaningful way:
(...)
In other words, it was/is a means to for a widget to ask the Widget
User Agent if an update is available from the remote location
addressed by the update element's href attribute (so, really it should
have been called "checkForUpdate()" or "updateInfo = new
UpdateChecker()", which the example begins to elude to). As it says in
the spec, "_actually performing the update is left to the discretion
of the widget user agent._"
Thanks for the clarification. This however does not strike me as
something that is vitally useful.
What's "this"?
Sorry, by "this" I mean the ability for a widget to check if there
exists a new version of itself. I can see value in the UA doing that on
its own, at intervals and criteria (not if I'm roaming, more often if it
crashed recently, etc) that can be set by the user. The UA would then
provide a consistent UI indicating that an update is available and
getting permission from the user (or just doing it, if allowed to do so).
The value in allowing authors to add <blink color='red'>Update!</blink>
seems rather limited to me, is what I'm saying.
Ok, I'm with you now. Yes, I agree it's a bit useless. Besides, the same
thing can be easily done with XHR if need be. I say we kill
"checkForUpdate()" as it gives back no useful info.
