Yes, if the automatic heuristic of Shindig caused undesired behavior by default (such as removing templates when they are needed or leaving them in when they are not).
But I imagine other implementations would be faced with similar constraints - so this could become a de-facto standard and make it into the next version of the spec. Even if it doesn't, don't containers ignore params they don't understand? Finally, I don't believe there is a large body of existing gadgets that would need to be modified... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Jordan Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>I'm not sure what you mean by "changing the gadget module". What I >>meant for (B) was support for > > This would require each gadget hosted in a Shindig container to be > changed. Or am I misunderstanding? > > Jordan Zimmerman > Principal Software Architect > 831.647.4712 > 831.214.2990 (cell) > [email protected] > > SHOP*COMTM > Shop Smart, Save Big(tm) > www.shop.com > > This message (including any attachments) is intended only for > the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and > may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, > privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under > applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. > If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this > communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this > communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and > (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this > message > immediately if this is an electronic communication. > > Thank you. >
