2008/7/29 Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Mike Samuel wrote: > >> >> >> 2008/7/28 Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> >> >> Well I think it depends on who gets to make the cajoled vs >> non-cajoled decision. Long term my thinking was that gadget authors >> won't get to choose. Probably 99% of them will be cajoled and some >> certain white listed or special gadgets will stay non-cajoled if the >> container wants them to. Because the container decides then the url >> is the best place for the switch. >> >> On the other hand, if the gadget developer gets to choose whether or >> not they are cajoled then the logic should be turned on by a require >> tag. Short term maybe this makes more sense... so that the >> developers can test it out in live containers? Or - you could say >> that they can already test cajoling out in shindig... so maybe they >> don't need control. >> >> Anyway, so I was basically thinking that - container choice = url >> and gadget choice = require. >> So, who gets the power? :) >> >> >> Ok, so a gadget should be cajoled if the container mandates it, or the >> gadget requests it? >> >> Right now, the meaning seems to be >> url=1 -> this iframe needs to have the caja runtime JS loaded >> <require feature-caja> -> the gadget source requires cajoling >> > > Other way round, surely? >
ack yes > > -- > http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.links.org/ > > "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he > doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff >
