Marcos Caceres a écrit :
>From the spec "...an author can request that a widget asynchronously
check if a widget has been updated [(i.e., that a new version of the
widget package is available online)] via the widget.update() method,
defined in the Widgets-API specification. This strategy also relies on
the author having declared a update element in the widget
configuration document, as it makes use of the URI to potentially
retrieve an UDD and relay whether an update is available back to the
instantiated Widget. ***Actually performing the update is left to the
discretion of the widget user agent.**"*
JCD: this standards trick works if your aim is to have a patent on the
highlighted point be judged as non-essential.
There are a few points to check to ensure non-essentiality:
- the language of the standard makes the feature a MAY (seems to be the
case);
- no test case uses the feature (should be easy too).
However, if the implementations consistently implement the feature, they
will infringe the patent and will get a call from the patent holder.
It seems to me that this feature may end up as "consistently implemented".
There would then be a good case for the WG to spend some time on
devising a proper workaround.
Anyone sharing my opinion that the widget update feature will be
consistenly implemented (even if optional) ?
Best regards
JC
--
JC Dufourd
Groupe Multimedia/Multimedia Group
Traitement du Signal et Images/Signal and Image Processing
Télécom ParisTech, 46 rue Barrault, 75 013 Paris, France
