Hmm, I raised this one too.I can't see how the origin handles instances exactly, and the concept of "origin" doesn't seem all that relevant to our implementation anyway - it looks more like something for browser makers to worry over?
Why is "origin of a widget" preferable to "instance of widget"?This could be important as some conformance statements relate to the concept, e.g: Upon getting the preferences attribute, the user agent must return a Storage object that represents the storage area for the origin of a widget.
If "origin of a widget" is not a sensible concept for the UA (as opposed to widget instance), does this fail conformance? How would you test for it for the UA anyway?
S On 23 Sep 2009, at 17:10, Marcos Caceres wrote:
5.4 How to handle multiple instances of the same widget?As far as I remember it was to be moved to WURIv2, but it seems important in the context of preferences.No, it's not important. They are bound to the origin of a widget as defined in WURI, and the origin of a widget is universally unique. Hence, preferences are unique and not shared.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
