Hi All,
Below is a copy of the proposal that I sent to Frederick and Marcos
following last week's WebApp call to capture the agreements that were
reached in regards to defining different signature roles.
I'm reposting to the public list to provide background to the updates to
that Widgets
The minutes from the February 19 Widgets voice conference are
available at the following and copied below:
http://www.w3.org/2009/02/19-wam-minutes.html
WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send
them to the public-webapps mail list before 5 March 2009 (the next
Attached is comment I sent on Mark's notes:
---
Mark
yes I think this is appropriate. I would suggest that the processing
rules for signature verification be uniform, apart from the fact that
a distributor signature includes author signature Reference.
Then I would argue it is application
Marcos,
A few weeks ago we talked about how a widget author could add widget-
specific metadata (e.g. initial settings) to the config file [1].
I think providing a declarative means to provide this metadata is
consistent with existing Req #14 - Widget Metadata [2]. Additionally,
at least
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
Marcos,
A few weeks ago we talked about how a widget author could add
widget-specific metadata (e.g. initial settings) to the config file [1].
I think providing a declarative means to provide this metadata is
Hi All,
In response to:
Action #224 - Work with Marcos to flesh out the details of the
processing model for multiple signatures; Mark and Marcos -
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/actions/224
I have outlined two alternative approaches to
Hi All,
In the email [1] containing my comments against the LCWD of Widgets 1.0:
Packaging Configuration spec, I wrote:
7.10 The access Element
The access element defines a network attribute as A boolean
attribute
that indicates that the widget might need to access network resources
as
The test suite has been updated accordingly:
http://ejohn.org/apps/selectortest/
http://github.com/jeresig/selectortest/commit/4827dedddaea6fa0b70cfdaadeeafef0d732a753
--John
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Lachlan Hunt lachlan.h...@lachy.id.au wrote:
Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18,
Hi, WebApps WG and XHTML2 WG-
There is a potential conflict between the access element defined in
the Widgets 1.0: Packaging and Configuration specification [1] and the
access element defined in the XHTML Access Module specification [2]
(most recent draft also available [3]).
It may be that both
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Thoughts?
Believe in namespaces or don't.
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
The access element in XHTML Access Module [1] is not a key navigation
element - it is a method for defining an abstract mapping from events to
event handlers[2]. One such event might be a key press. The XHTML
Access Module has been under development for ages, and that name was
specifically
Hi, Robert-
Robert Sayre wrote (on 2/20/09 12:56 PM):
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Doug Schepers schep...@w3.org wrote:
Thoughts?
Believe in namespaces or don't.
Oh, I believe in namespaces.
But when it can be avoided, it's better for authors if:
a) there are as few duplicate names
ISSUE-82 (Access element naming conflict): potential conflict between the XHTML
access and Widget access element [Widgets]
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/82
Raised by: Doug Schepers
On product: Widgets
In [4], Doug Schepers identified a potential conflict between the access
13 matches
Mail list logo
