headers
Marcos Caceres | 1 Oct 2009 11:14
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [A&E] Last Call comments (2): discovery & localization


Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2009, at 16:07 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>> Robin Berjon wrote:
>>> On Sep 21, 2009, at 20:08 , Marcos Caceres wrote:
>>>>> 5.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Localization
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall it be possible for the widget to programmatically discover the
>>>>> localization path it was loaded from (section 9 of P&C)?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, you can check its URI. If the implementation supports the window
>>>> object, then it possible.
>>>
>>> How? window.location will return widget:///foo.html irrespective of
>>> whether the runtime loaded /foo.html or /locales/fr/foo.html.
>>
>> Ah, ok. Yes, forgot about that. Well, the best we can do is give the
>> lang list that the UA is using? Ideas? is this really important? I can
>> see it being useful to know where stuff is being loaded from instead
>> of having to guess where a resource was loaded from.
>
> I wouldn't call it important enough that it would have to happen in v1.
> Basic functionality would be to expose the UA's known preferred locales,
> but I don't think that's for us to define (it seems like a perfect
> candidate for the navigator object). If you want to make it useful in
> our model you need to be able to find the locale of a given resource,
> which in turn requires a uriToLocale() method.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robin Berjon | 1 Oct 2009 11:58
Gravatar

Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

Hi,

On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially  
> since we have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our  
> published CR, in particular the normative Conformance Checker  
> requirements that will presumably be removed from the spec. As such,  
> I prefer publishing CR#2 since it sends a clear signal to any  
> implementor the July CR is superseded.
>
> Additionally, given the mandatory 2-month exclusion period that will  
> start upon LC#3's publication, it appears the "short route" i.e.  
> skipping CR#2 won't actually save us any time. That is, during that  
> same amount of time we can a) publish LC#3 (3 weeks) and b) publish  
> CR#2 with a relatively short CR (e.g. 4 weeks).

I think that this much makes sense.

> A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree  
> to all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion  
> period begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published;  
> January 5 CR#2 ends as does the Exclusion period; mid January  
> publish PR.

This is the part that I'm not sure I understand. Do we really need to  
wait until the F2F to agree to the changes that need to be made? My  
understanding is that Marcos has almost integrated all of them, and  
also that we believe we now have a level of review way above anything  
we had before. Why not just go into LC#3 next week, and hit CR#2 at  
the F2F?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Robin Berjon | 1 Oct 2009 12:02
Gravatar

Re: Please don't call your API "simple"

On Sep 30, 2009, at 20:49 , Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>> Maybe WebDatabase should be WebSQLDatabase or WebSQLDB
>
> I have suggested this before [1], but fighting about names seems to  
> be a lost cause in this WG.

To be fair and honest, fighting about names is a lost cause in any WG.  
The only process I've seen work for this is Survivor Voting whereby  
all names are listed, people vote for the one the hate most, and one  
is eliminated at each turn until only one is left. If you want to  
change the names I'd suggest you organise that — otherwise it'll just  
be one long bike-shed discussion.

--

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcos Caceres | 1 Oct 2009 12:15
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Robin Berjon <robin <at> berjon.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sep 30, 2009, at 18:09 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>>
>> I am not particularly comfortable with skipping CR#2 especially since we
>> have no way of knowing who is actually implementing our published CR, in
>> particular the normative Conformance Checker requirements that will
>> presumably be removed from the spec. As such, I prefer publishing CR#2 since
>> it sends a clear signal to any implementor the July CR is superseded.
>>
>> Additionally, given the mandatory 2-month exclusion period that will start
>> upon LC#3's publication, it appears the "short route" i.e. skipping CR#2
>> won't actually save us any time. That is, during that same amount of time we
>> can a) publish LC#3 (3 weeks) and b) publish CR#2 with a relatively short CR
>> (e.g. 4 weeks).
>
> I think that this much makes sense.
>
>> A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree to
>> all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion period
>> begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published; January 5 CR#2 ends
>> as does the Exclusion period; mid January publish PR.
>
> This is the part that I'm not sure I understand. Do we really need to wait
> until the F2F to agree to the changes that need to be made? My understanding
> is that Marcos has almost integrated all of them, and also that we believe
> we now have a level of review way above anything we had before. Why not just
> go into LC#3 next week, and hit CR#2 at the F2F?
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcos Caceres | 1 Oct 2009 12:25
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [A&E] Last Call comments (1)


Scott Wilson wrote:
> Hmm, I raised this one too.
>
> I can't see how the origin handles instances exactly, and the concept of
> "origin" doesn't seem all that relevant to our implementation anyway -
> it looks more like something for browser makers to worry over?
>
> Why is "origin of a widget" preferable to "instance of widget"?
>
> This could be important as some conformance statements relate to the
> concept, e.g:
>
> Upon getting <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#getting> the
> |preferences| attribute, the user agent
> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#user-agent> /must/ return a
> |Storage <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage0>| object that
> represents the storage area
> <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#storage-area> for the origin of
> a widget <http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/#origin-of-a-widget>.
>
> If "origin of a widget" is not a sensible concept for the UA (as opposed
> to widget instance), does this fail conformance? How would you test for
> it for the UA anyway?

Ok, I've trashed the "origin of widget" concept. I need to write a 
proper definition of widget instance. I'll check in a new draft soon.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Arthur Barstow | 1 Oct 2009 12:41
Picon

Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

On Oct 1, 2009, at 5:58 AM, ext Robin Berjon wrote:

>> A rough schedule would then be: during the Nov 2-3 f2f meeting agree
>> to all changes for LC#3; November 10 LC#3 is published and Exclusion
>> period begins; December 1 LC#3 ends; Dec 9 CR#2 is published;
>> January 5 CR#2 ends as does the Exclusion period; mid January
>> publish PR.
>
> This is the part that I'm not sure I understand. Do we really need to
> wait until the F2F to agree to the changes that need to be made? My
> understanding is that Marcos has almost integrated all of them, and
> also that we believe we now have a level of review way above anything
> we had before. Why not just go into LC#3 next week, and hit CR#2 at
> the F2F?

I can see my email can be interpreted as "we must wait until the f2f  
before agreeing to changes" but what I meant is more like "let's make  
that the deadline for any LC#3 changes". Naturally, we should try to  
get consensus on all CR issues as soon as we can.

Give the July CR says it will not end until November 1, it would seem  
a bit strange if we published a new LC before then. Given this and  
the publication moratorium around the TPAC time frame, I think Nov 10  
is the first publishing opportunity. Perhaps one of the Team members  
can provide some guidance on the rules and/or precedence for that.

-Regards, Art Barstow
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Dominique Hazael-Massieux | 1 Oct 2009 12:57
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

Le jeudi 01 octobre 2009 à 06:41 -0400, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
> Give the July CR says it will not end until November 1, it would seem  
> a bit strange if we published a new LC before then.

Actually, the end of CR period really means "the document won't go to PR
before then" - I don't think there would be any problem for the document
to go back to LC or to a new CR before that period expires.

Dom
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Robin Berjon | 1 Oct 2009 13:09
Gravatar

Re: [widgets] P&C: LC#3 and CR#2

On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:41 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
> Give the July CR says it will not end until November 1, it would  
> seem a bit strange if we published a new LC before then. Given this  
> and the publication moratorium around the TPAC time frame, I think  
> Nov 10 is the first publishing opportunity. Perhaps one of the Team  
> members can provide some guidance on the rules and/or precedence for  
> that.

As Dom confirms, my understanding of that date is to say that PR won't  
happen before then, meaning that whoever is implementing has at least  
that much time in which to participate in the implementation report.  
If at all possible, I'd like to go to CR#2 *before* the moratorium —  
that way we can still hit Rec in 2009.

--

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcos Caceres | 1 Oct 2009 13:48
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: [widgets] Closing widget Interface issues

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Scott Wilson
<scott.bradley.wilson <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> #1 & #2 are the same issue; we haven't reached consensus yet, though as
> Marcos says in his response on #1, we are in agreement over what we are
> trying to achieve with this part of the spec - we just need to figure out
> which of the two approaches to take.

Right.

> My preference is to replace "origin of a widget" with "the widget instance",

Ok, "origin of a widget" is now gone in favor "widget instance". I
also got rid on the "widget context" concept, which was ambiguous and
confusing. Widget instance still needs a definition.

> and then phrase conformance in terms of UA requirements e.g. must offer a
> unique storage area bound to each widget instance, must not allow a widget
> instance to access or overwrite the storage area of another widget instance.

done.

> However, exactly how the UA binds a widget instance to a storage area would
> be an implementation detail.

Exactly.

> The implications I can see of such a change are:
> - There may no longer be a dependency on Widgets-URI [1], affecting section

There is now no dependency on Widget-URI
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Marcin Hanclik | 1 Oct 2009 14:34

RE: Comments on View Modes Media Feature ED

Hi Robin,

Thanks for your comments.
My answers inline below.

Thanks,
Marcin

Marcin Hanclik
ACCESS Systems Germany GmbH
Tel: +49-208-8290-6452  |  Fax: +49-208-8290-6465
Mobile: +49-163-8290-646
E-Mail: marcin.hanclik <at> access-company.com

-----Original Message-----
From: public-webapps-request <at> w3.org [mailto:public-webapps-request <at> w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 2:37 PM
To: public-webapps WG
Subject: Comments on View Modes Media Feature ED

Hi,

here are my comments on http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-vm/vm-mediafeature.src.html
.

> Abstract
> This specification defines a media feature related to the
> presentation mode of the document. Multiple view modes are specified
> that allow for accomodation of various content presentation use
> cases. This document builds upon the Media Queries [MediaQueries]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane