All,
Reviewing the spec there is no access to the License attribute. Shouldn¹t
it be added in the liste of the accessible attributes?
Best Regards, Benoit
Benoit Suzanne
Orange Widgets Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
benoit.suza...@orange-ftgroup.com
image.pngimage.png
I believe that when creating content, it is easier/clearer to have multiple
files. There is less confusion and therfore less errors.
Benoit Suzanne
Widget Factory Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
t. +33 (0)145 298 198 - m. +33 (0)680 287 553
I also agree with this proposal
Benoit Suzanne
Widget Factory Project Manager - Orange Labs - FT/RD/SIRP/SOL/SLAM
t. +33 (0)145 298 198 - m. +33 (0)680 287 553
benoit.suza...@orange-ftgroup.com
From: Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:12:06 -0400
To:
All,
Based on our last F2F, we have talked about an RSS like file format that
would standardise the widget list for various needs. I do not consider the
following as a formal format proposition but as an input to open the
discussion as it should probably be written in atom instead of RSS.
So here
and configuration LC review
Hi Benoit,
Inline comments below. For the sake of the LC disposition of comments,
please be sure to indicate if you are satisfied with the changes I have
made
On 1/20/09 8:50 PM, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS
benoit.suza...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
Hello All,
Here
Hi all, about the widget windows modes, I wanted to share the following
points:
*** Wording ***
In the wordings of the modes, I think that the wording used in some of the
modes are too specific to existing platforms, therefore I propose the
following names:
* Icon: I¹m not sure this one is really
In vista sidebar also, the root folder is used without any specific
intermediate folder name, and this can become very messy. For this reason I
would advocate for the intermediate folder.
I think we should push for the i18n naming as, even if it sounds a bit
geeky, it is becoming a standard in
for detailed
description of the changes I made.
Please let me know if you are satisfied with the responses I've have
given below or if you would like any further clarification.
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 8:52 AM, SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos,
Here are my comments
Marcos,
Here are my comments on the Requirements (W3C Working Draft 23 June 2008)
1. Introduction
[...] This document does not address the requirements of web widgets, such
as iGoogle Gadgets or Windows Live Gadgets.
I Think we can add a wording at the end of the sentense to read: ³...,
