Hi Art,
I think I heard you say something different at the workshop, which is
why I'm pinging you...
I think that there are a few places where this requirement goes beyond
what's in the Design Goals, and also beyond Motherhood and Apple Pie
-- specifically, reusability of the signature framework for Web
Applications (this one should be relatively easy), and resource
identification, i.e., the pesky URI scheme debate (this one is less
likely to be easy).
Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <[email protected]>
On 27 Jan 2009, at 13:02, Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I'm not convinced there is a need to explicitly capture such a
Motherhood and Apple Pie requirement?
IMHO, the Design Goals as codified in the Reqs doc [1] e.g.
Compatibility with other standards, Interoperability, etc. are
sufficient. Agreed?
-Art
[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/widgets-reqs/#design>
On Jan 27, 2009, at 6:54 AM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
Hi Art, Marcos,
as you'll remember, there was pretty strong agreement in the room at
the December workshop that widget technologies should stay as close
as
possible to Webapps, and that no gratuitous differences should be
part
of the technology. At the time, you said that this is a requirement
that should go into the Widgets requirements draft. Has that
happened?
FYI, here's the text that I'm currently planning to have in the
workshop report:
<p>Workshop participants strongly agreed that APIs and security
models used for widgets and more classical Web applications should
be aligned as closely as possible. This requirement is expected to
apply to current and future work in the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/
">Web Applications Working Group</a>, and to additional work that
might be chartered as a result of this workshop.</p>
Cheers,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C <[email protected]>
