Marcos Caceres wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 1:56 PM, JC Verdié wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Obviously as you point out, digsig were a nightmare. May be it was us,
but the spec was not really straightforward to implement and we found it
difficult.
As lead Editor, I'm really very sorry about this - I strive to make specs as
accessible to everyone as possible, and I'm sorry if what was written was
confusing/difficult to interpret. If there are bits that should be clarified,
then please let me know and I'll see what I can do to improve it.
We're talking about long-lasting history here :) I'd need to ask the
developers from this time if they do remember what's been the biggest
problems. Stay tuned.
On widgets itself, our main issue came from our own constraints (TV
browser with no chrome ui), it lead to some inconsistencies to handle to
overall UX. For instance, the impossibility to handle user events on a
global level so that buttons used for exit or any immediate actions are
not caught up by the widget, but by the "root" application. We hacked in
several ways to achieve this but it was a disappointing point.
Right, but this is a platform/system issue (how events traverse through the
system). This was outside the scope of the work.
Agreed. But it's been a hurdle and I don't know how many companies just
gave up about widgets because of this.
I guess what I'm saying is we missed a wider view of how widgets are
handled, run, die, and interact with the browser itself.
Despite this, it's been very useful to us and we have deployed many
solutions based on it, so anything that keeps compatibility with widgets
is good to us
Happy to hear.
