Hi Anne, No one asked for an apology, but nevertheless, to you and your colleagues, I wanted to apologize for appearing to omit Opera when I said Webkit and/or Mozilla. Maybe I can excuse myself by saying everyone knows that of course Opera has world-class support of W3C standards. But the main reason I listed WebKit and Mozilla was because I wanted to point out that there are two open source browser projects that implements W3C standards faithfully, one of which has proven to be suitable for mobile phones, so there is no excuse (such as licensing fees) for a company that provides a widget system to not implement W3C document format standards. But people should not forget that Opera is also there should there be a need for a partner, and Opera also runs on mobile phones.
Jon
"Anne van
Kesteren"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] To
> Jon Ferraiolo/Menlo Park/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent by: cc
public-appformats "WAF WG (public)"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: [widgets-reqs] Comments on
05/07/2007 12:49 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-widget
AM s-reqs-20070209
On Mon, 07 May 2007 03:07:25 +0200, Jon Ferraiolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I strongly encourage a profile that aligns well with WebKit's and/or
> Mozilla's support for W3C standards. This would allow leverage of all of
> the existing Ajax industry for developing widgets. Regarding any vendors
> that have proprietary UIMLs, they can author their own profiles.
Yeah, I think it would make sense to mandate support for particular web
formats as well for web browsers implementing widgets.
--
Anne van Kesteren
<http://annevankesteren.nl/>
<http://www.opera.com/>
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
<<inline: pic28481.gif>>
<<inline: ecblank.gif>>
