On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 2:50 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscace...@gmail.com> wrote: > did you just say "the tools will save us?" :)
i did, did! > It's better to avoid confusion > altogether and make this a bit more liberal, me thinks. i think we risk people thinking that paths are allowed and meaningful. i'd rather avoid that confusion up front. > This is true, but it's a bit mean to punish developers because of a simple > slash. there's a path to the dark side, and i think you're approaching it :). > Tools will get there, I'm sure. :) > Opera's system pretty much does the same for extensions. :) > Opera checks JS code manually and configs automatically against the P&C > schema. However, RelaxNG schema checks can't check the level of granularity > required here (i.e., at the URI specific level). It seems like a WARP validator (whatever that might be) should be able to handle this if it's able to see the content in the first place. > The problem is more developers getting put off thinking that the widget > engine is broken or they go crazy trying to find out what the bug is that is > not allowing WARP to work.... when it turns out to be just a slash. Sounds like UAs need an authoring/debugging mode with better error reporting. > This affects devs, instead of users most of the time. WARP simply wont work, > so users will remain unaffected... that is, unless one engine allows "/", as > Opera currently does... which will lead to interop fun. Grr. please don't do that, slippery slopes like this / races to the bottom are really unfair to everyone else. > Agreed. But as I have argued, this issue stings devs long before they submit > things to an app store. It makes app development just that little bit more > annoying. Sounds like a problem that a little education (samples, FAQ/gotchas), and a little UA reporting for authors help should address. Ideally UAs should be able to recognize when an author is authoring (perhaps because the widget is unsigned?) I really don't think relaxing the syntax is the right path forward.
