On Mar 23, 2010, at 10:50 , Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> WARP is a split from P+C, its ancestor is in the first draft. > > Sounds fine to document it that way, since the precursor is not clear from > backtracking through "previous version" links of WARP.
Yeah, the absence of a link is a bug on my part, I'll fix that. >> The Widget URI scheme was initially intended for P+C (as can be seen from >> the TBD section in older drafts) but the content wasn't written up before it >> was branched. > > That sounds like a new document to me. But either way, documenting its origin > would be fine. I think the first trace of it is in http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#addressing. After that, people started talking with the TAG I presume (I wasn't in the WG during that period). >> View modes were also in the 2008 P+C draft, but either way they probably >> shouldn't be listed as a widget deliverable considering that they can be >> used in even broader contexts (as requested by the CSS WG). > > Maybe it should be renamed to not include "Widgets" in the title, and not be > identified as a Widgets deliverable. That would be fine by me. Yes, I believe that might be the plan. >> Essentially there is nothing new in widgets, the plan is simply to finish >> the existing ongoing work quickly. > > There is at least the new "Widget Embedding" item in the charter (which is > indicated as a new item). Actually, it's been considered before :) http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widgets-20071013/#embedding -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
