On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 06:44:23 +0100, Marcos Caceres <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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?
Yea, widget isn't a good name. Perhaps <config> since the file is called
config.xml?
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>.
They are used for the initial width and height of the window. Personally,
I think we should have used CSS styling to determine aspect. I agree with
Ed that it shouldn't be part of the format.
Other comments:
- <widgetname> should be renamed to <name>
- should support multiple authors
- the security tag should be dropped or reviewed
- should not require that a widget is packaged at the root of the zip file
- The Widget Scripting Interfaces should be dropped or reviewed. In
particular, the geometry methods since this wouldn't make sense on some
widget runners
- should mention a XML NS for the format
- should mention a strategy for both embedding the config information
inside the widget and reference the config information from the widget
Regards,
- Gorm Haug Eriksen
