Hi Ed,
Thanks for being the first to comment on the draft:-)
I also agree with Ed in relation to the root node maybe being called
something other than <widget> (for the sake of accommodating all
vendors). Some alternative names off the top of my head:
* <application>, or
* <component>, or
* <about>, or
* <manifest>, or
* <metadata>, or
* <configuration>
Anyone else got any suggestions?
Regarding initial width and height... On the one hand, I agree with Ed
in relation to them not being part of the manifest as these elements
should be considered style, not metadata. On the other hand, those of us
who worked on the requirements document thought that it might be a good
idea to have these elements in the manifest as a way of preempting the
size of a widget before it is loaded. Our motivations for these elements
were primarily to do with device independence. Given that the Widgets
1.0 is based on Opera's config format for their widgets, I cannot
comment as to why or how Opera uses <width> and <height>. Regardless,
I'm easy either way with these elements as the initial size of a widget
is usually irrelevant as they can dynamically grow in width and height
(and position).
Regarding security, this is obviously a very complex area and we are
looking at how all the different vendors have approached issues of
widget security. It would be great to hear Yahoo!'s position on widget
security. What do you feel is important for this area? Have
Konfabulator's user's or development community raised particular issues
about security?
Kind regards,
Marcos
Ed Voas wrote:
Hi,
Just read the specification for Widgets 1.0. In particular, I'm
interested in the config.xml file and format. It was only yesterday
that I had sent out an email internally here that called for adding a
manifest to our Konfabulator engine which has almost everything the
current spec has (except for width and height, as I don't believe that
belongs there, as I view that file as metadata, not anything that
would affect the DOM).
Interested in seeing more around the security block in particular. I
only have vague ideas on what should be there, and it looks like you
do too :-)
Also, should the document root node really be called <widget> in that
file? We already use that for our main XML file, as Widget is the top
of our DOM.
-- Ed
