On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:41 PM, timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/18/08, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
R28. Network State Change Events
A conforming specification must specify a means that allows authors to
check if the widget resource is connected to Web. A conforming
(as was
the case with XDR), people may start coming up with all sorts of
ridiculous conspiracy theories [1] as to why you did that.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://datadriven.com.au/2008/06/18/ie8-xdomainrequest-conspiracy-theory/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
http://standardssuck.org
To which Timeless replied...
-- Forwarded message --
From: timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Widgets] Requirements LC
To: Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(you didn't reply to the list)
On 6/18/08, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To which Timeless replied...
-- Forwarded message --
From: timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Widgets] Requirements LC
To: Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED
= function(loadedAPI){
try{
gps = loadedAPI.bind();
loc = gps.getLastLoc();
catch(e){
}
}
apiLoader.onError = function(loader){}
apiLoader.load();
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
http://standardssuck.org
On Sun, Jun 22, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Marcos Caceres wrote:
This is a proposal to add alternative text to icon element. As with
the alt attribute in HTML, the alternative text could be used as
fallback content, or for context where an image icon does
edit it, but
would not want to take a leading editorial role.
kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Mike(tm) Smith has set up a Last Call comments tracker for the Widgets
1.0: Requirements document:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-reqs-20080625
All comments will be tracked through there.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Sean,
On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Sean Mullan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
However, do you think we should be referencing version 4? has there
been much uptake of v4?
Not sure, but I would be more inclined to reference RFC 5280:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5280.txt
be done as an HTTP Header, as an attribute in
the XML that represents the widget (as in your example), Or as some
other element delivered in the package itself.
I'm sure it could be done. But how can this be done easily with Apache or IIS?
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 10:17 PM, mike amundsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos:
snip
I'm sure it could be done. But how can this be done easily with Apache
or IIS?
/snip
Since Apache
.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-land/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
away from
completion. Widgets, we assume/hope, we package HTML5 applications in
the future but we are standardizing, for better or for worsts, on
HTML4.01.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
point. Fixed.
R44. Runtime Security Exceptions
A conforming specification must specify runtime exceptions for when the API
attempts to perform an action it it not authorized to perform.
Correct it it
fixed.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
agree with a lot of the things in WCAG
1 or 2, but if it's the best we have so be it. It would be helpful if
others with more experience in this area could provide some guidance
on how to proceed.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Doug, All,
below is the plain text edition of the email. It can also be found in
the archive:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0302.html
---
Dear Art, Marcos and all,
Please find attached the second set of OMTP BONDI input to the W3C Web
Applications WG
readers and similar assistive technologies.
--
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
technologies such as screen readers with:
screen readers and other assistive technologies
Yep, much better! fixed.
Thanks!
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
the persistence? Shouldn't the
word instantated be omitted?
Ok, I see what you mean. I dropped the word instantiated.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-land/#differences
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
or comments from WebApps members or the TAG are welcomed.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008May/0121.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/61
[3] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
. For instance, in a new version of a widget, I might want to
add support for file access and access to another domain, but retain
the user's preset preferences. It would suck, as a developer, if I was
not allowed to do that.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
-webapps/2008JulSep/0298.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
: Phillips, Addison
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Marcos Caceres; Arthur Barstow; Felix Sasaki; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Widgets i18n feedback
Hi,
My personal comments on the Widgets specs located at [1] follow. I have
copied a few members of the WebApps
further.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-land/Overview.src.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
on architectural decisions and guidance on best practices for
widgets and mobile-based client side web applications.
Kind regards,
Marcos
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 7:45 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bryan, MWBP WG,
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Sullivan, Bryan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
their
servers to handle the verification load. Though I can understand that
taking some load off servers would be a good thing but it seems to add
more complexity to the digsig model... Is that a fair call?
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
. The technological infrastructure
needed to develop such a thing is beyond the scope of Widgets 1.0 (but
that's not to say that it should not be part of any Widgets 2.0
effort).
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
objection to because that spec is a Note and hence non-normative): RDF
puts an unnecessarily heavy burden on anyone on the receiving end of
the technology, particularly for something that, as you state, is
supposed to be simple.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
of next week.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0417.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Bryanston Street
London
W1H 7AJ
www.omtp.org
P Please consider the environment – don't print this mail unless you really
need to...
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
unless it's strictly required. Oh, and periods should be
used consistently :)
'and' before last item:
snip
All fixed...
Thanks again!
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
satisfaction. To be sure, your comments have substantially
improved the quality of this specification and possibly the direction
the WG will take with this work.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
and hope that we can convince the
GeoLocation guys to add a URI to their spec.
thoughts, comments, etc
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
place (or is that
wishful thinking?).
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
of OMTP, I'd like to thank you for your hard work integrating
the OMTP input to the requirements spec. We're happy with the changes in
[1].
Thanks,
David.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
Sent: 05 September 2008 14:30
(and not by pointing to widget packages on the Web). I will try
to have the Update spec ready for FPWD by the end of today.
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Marcos,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 5:46 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I've dropped the etag attribute from the update element in the
Widget Packaging spec as I deemed it too difficult
on this text at the moment, so if it's still a bit
vague let us know and we will try to clarify it.
Also from my point of view, the first icon will be used.
So in the example above the PNG may look better than the GIF. (example)
Again, please see the links above.
--
Marcos Caceres
http
). Most specs get grossly outdated within a few days of
publication on the TR page.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Google Reader, need a little more (like
ARIA). So what I meant was the HTML has to be enhanced in order to
meet the accessibility requirements that users have come to expect
from today's Web.
[1] http://www.gcn.com/blogs/tech/41547.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM, timeless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/9/22 Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ok. I see your point. However, I'm not sure what I can do as vendors
won't budge on this issue for now. At the moment, ZIP serves the
purpose for widgets. But as they become more
Tha
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Eric [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please fix the introduction :
more geneTic user agent (eg. a Web browser)
should be geneRic
Fixed. Thanks!
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
stable (or hopefully it will be by the time
we get to CR). Dumping the preferences API will also avoid problems in
the future as HTML5 becomes prevalent in the market.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Arve Bersvendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:35:42 +0200, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
I think we should dump the Widgets preferences API in favor of HTML5
DOM's storage API. Basically, preferences API basically
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Arve Bersvendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:28:59 +0200, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While I, in principle, agree that not replicating existing storage APIs
is a
good thing, are we sure that all widget implementations
, but I thought I would send
them while I looked at the spec.
No, that's great! thank you!
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
(if we do decide to use it, would it b more
appropriate to hijack the :port?). For example,
widget://:a34af23bh23/myFile.png
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
/2008/webapps/wiki/WidgetsMandelieuAgenda
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
think I've gone about specifying what you intended
correctly.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 1:32 AM, Felix Sasaki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi, i18n-WG.
In recent feedback we received from Addison Phillips regarding the
Widgets 1.0: Packaging specification, he suggested
native widgets markup from the any defintions. That
is just a suggestion, no need to handle this as a formal comments.
Regards, Felix.
Kind regards,
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those
requirements. So why not, for the sake of argument, file:?
Yes, file
Hi Henri,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 01:44, Marcos Caceres wrote:
http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-updates/
As always, comments welcomed.
The sentence An update source is the URi referenced by the src attribute
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I will add Any hierarchical URI scheme as the proposed solution
into the spec.
I will say that, personally, I feel it is irresponsible
/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Sep/0006.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-appformats/2007Sep/0026.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
for working with us on this.
Excellent! thank you and thanks to everyone in the i18n-wg for taking
the time to help us out!
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, In one of my previous emails I said
the format Major.Minor[.Micro] (X.X[.X]).
This affects the widget element's version attribute and parts of the
Updates spec in a minor way.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
, then don't call it id=
[17:24] Hixie if it shoul, do
[17:24] tlr-off or for any other matching-by-id, that is
[17:24] tlr-off indeed
[17:25] tlr-off e.g., xpath
We don't use widget id in the manner above. Any suggestions?
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
a mention to that effect
would be useful.
We will be sure to include a note about this. We will let you know
once we've added it so you can check that it is ok.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. It's just like an etag, only not an etag 8-)
LOL! right :)
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
:32 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HI All,
After discussions on IRC, it has become clear that we need to rename
the widget element's id attribute:
[17:24] Hixie the real question is not what allowed values it has,
but whether it should be used for CSS #id matching or DOM
with
my responses in the future.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
). But I feel this is already far
enough from the present topic.
Agreed. Thank you again for your feedback.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
for your help Kai!
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 24 Nov 2008, at 22:46, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Subject: http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#the-license
Having a optional URI or href whatever for the license would be good.
Seems to be some inconsistency between src
packages (they inner packages are treated as arbitrary files) and we
have no requirements that call for inner package access.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1]
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/infrastructure.html#content-type-0
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
that there is a potential to develop a
media-type + fragID-syntax based solution to the package component/widget
addressing problem.
Completely agreed. But can we please work on the scheme, authority
and path bits first?
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
[1] http
, the metadata becomes a
URI rather than a single bit. Either way, you can gain a lot from not a lot,
I think.
So we are clear, what do you have in mind here?
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Stuart,
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 01 December 2008 15:28
To: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; public-webapps
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Boris Zbarsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
That wouldn't be a problem in widgets, as we would say .css is always
text/css.
My point is that this doesn't seem like a reasonable requirement,
necessarily.
Do you have any suggestions
insensitive comparisons.
So, for instance, access network= false is ok.
Does anyone see any problem with this? Should I revert back to being
strict and having UA do comparisons without trimming?
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
HI Simon,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:51:13 +0100, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question... I've relaxed keyword attributes to be allowed to
have leading and trailing whitespace.
Any particular reason
will named href.
This applies to the following elements:
* author
* license
* update
==identifiers==
There are two instances where identifiers are used. For the widget
element's identifier wid and for the feature element's name
attribute.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http
Hi Jere,
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Jere Kapyaho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3.12.2008 4.51, ext Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Got a question... I've relaxed keyword attributes to be allowed to
have leading and trailing whitespace. Now, widget user agents are
required to trim
by the widget element's mode attribute, but
not their behavior/rendering, which should be specified somewhere
else... but I don't know where.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Art,
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Arthur Barstow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos,
On Dec 3, 2008, at 5:03 PM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:
A widget user agent would be expected to support the above types. All
other types are optional. All proprietary types, apart from ico, are
optional
forward to working with everyone on addressing
[3], but hopefully people will also be inclined to help us with the
problem we have with widgets.
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Laurens,
2008/12/5 Laurens Holst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marcos Caceres schreef:
Ok, hearing no objections, then I propose we bake in the following
file extensions into the spec (we can debate which MIME types to use
after we settle on the extensions!):
.html
.htm
.css
.gif
.jpeg
.png
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi Laurens,
2008/12/5 Laurens Holst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marcos Caceres schreef:
Ok, hearing no objections, then I propose we bake in the following
file extensions into the spec (we can debate
to this. However, for those who know more about encoding, it
would be helpful if you could also take a look at the Zip spec.
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#zip-relative
[2] http://www.pkware.com/documents/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT
--
Marcos
Woops, by fully decomposed canonical form I think I ment
Normalization Form D (NFD) as defined in:
http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr15/#Decomposition
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to put the final touches on the zip section of the
widget
of unpleasantness.
Agreed.
[1] http://www.taguri.org/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
are up to date, update a few and add any
references that are missing or incomplete.
Hope someone will be kind enough to help me out!
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
/expresssion/expression/
fixed.
s/fobar.png/foobar.png/
fixed.
s/langauge/language/
fixed.
Thanks again.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Hi Martin,
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:31 08/12/06, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Hi, I'm trying to put the final touches on the zip section of the widget
packaging spec [1] before we go to LC by the 10th and I've run into an i18n
problem related
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:11 PM, Simon Pieters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:53:22 +0100, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Moi? a personal political agenda to rid the word of
application/xhtml
2008/12/10 Laurens Holst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marcos Caceres schreef:
Seems that there is still too much incompatibility to suggest
application/xml support across Widget user agents. I think we should
just stick with text/html. If authors want to use application/xml,
then they can use content
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Adam Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If authors want to use application/xml,
then they can use content src=somefile type=application/xml /
and hope for the best :)
I haven't been
Hi Laurens,
2008/12/10 Laurens Holst [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Marcos Caceres schreef:
I'm not sure if any widget engines support application/xhtml+xml.
I do not know your definition of 'widget engine', but Opera, Safari, Firefox
all support application/xhtml+xml (and Prince XML too, but I don't
).
Will do.
Kind regards,
Marcos
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0436.html
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
.
I think we should push for the i18n naming as, even if it sounds a bit
geeky, it is becoming a standard in the javascript frameworks, and using
something else will introduce confusion.
Can you please point me which frameworks are using i18n as a folder to
contain localized content?
--
Marcos
Hi, Scott!
On 1/14/09 7:55 PM, Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
Two EU-funded projects have implemented the draft W3C Widgets
specifications, both the packaging and API parts.
This is fantastic to hear.
What is notable from these projects have been the
Hi Jere,
On 1/14/09 3:28 PM, Jere Kapyaho jere.kapy...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi Marcos,
I have (still) a couple of concerns about the localization section of
Widgets Packaging Configuration Last Call WD of 20081222.
/1/ Is the following statement in [1] as it should be?
Author
On 1/12/09 2:03 PM, Priestley, Mark, VF-Group
mark.priest...@vodafone.com wrote:
Hi Frederick, All,
As promised on last week's call some further clarifications below on
R44.
Thanks,
Mark
(1) R44 http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r44.-
This requirement is unclear.
Hi Frederick, Mark,
On 1/7/09 6:36 PM, Frederick Hirsch frederick.hir...@nokia.com wrote:
Mark
Some more discussion inline, thanks for taking the time to review.
Do you mind updating the draft with the items we agree?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Jan 7,
Hi Frederick,
I've updated the requirements document wrt the suggestions you have made.
However, I have not yet included the new requirements as I need to consider
them a bit more before I do so. Naturally, if we find that things like
expiration and policy association are applicable beyond
Hi Dominique,
On 11/25/08 2:05 PM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux d...@w3.org wrote:
Hi Art, Charles,
As was discussed during the WebApps WG F2F in Cannes, the Mobile Web
Test Suites Working Group (and in particular, Kai Hendry) has started to
work on developing test cases for the Widgets
Hi Artb,
On 1/13/09 7:46 PM, Arthur Barstow art.bars...@nokia.com wrote:
I agree with Frederick that R44 as codified in the most recent ED (11
Dec 2008) isn't clear, particularly trying to foresee what exactly
would be specified in the Widgets DigSig spec and assuring we don't
prescribe
are interested in the tag: scheme.
Marcos Caceres, the Editor of our Widgets spec, asked me to contact
to you re this scheme. For a bit of context, please see his email
below as well as a summary of the Widget scheme issue in [Widget-
scheme].
If you have any info to share, we would greatly
. Thank you for providing the feedback and helping clarify
the requirements!
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
1 - 100 of 1144 matches
Mail list logo
