Scott Wilson wrote:
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 <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting> the |preferences| attribute, the user agent <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#user-agent> /must/ return a |Storage <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage0>| object that represents the storage area <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage-area> for the origin of a widget <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#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?
Ok, I've trashed the "origin of widget" concept. I need to write a proper definition of widget instance. I'll check in a new draft soon.
