Comments on: W3C Widgets 1.0 Requirements

By: Tribulus

Tribulus — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:15:00 +0000

Yes I agree
IT Should Start soon. Earlier the better

By: Indiamobiles

Indiamobiles — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 21:06:57 +0000

IT Should Start soon. Earlier the better

By: slug

slug — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 16:35:35 +0000

Nice blog i have to say

By: ned

ned — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:43:06 +0000

Nice Blog

By: Marcos Caceres

Marcos Caceres — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:37:20 +0000

Andrew, by no means do we want to limit platform specific features. We are trying to come up with a solution to exactly that problem. All suggestions as to how to overcome this issue are welcomed.

By: Marcos Caceres

Marcos Caceres — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:31:04 +0000

Mikael, I agree that the widget 1.0 spec should not attempt to standardize everything related to widgets as, like you said, we have not seen complete maturity of this technology. However, widget engines are pseudo standardizing features on their own (using JavaScript, Zip, HTML or XML, etc). I believe it is a good time to start capturing that in a spec. However, the spec needs to be built in such a way that it does not stifle innovation. That is why we are writing it in an open manner; so lots of people can keep an eye on what we are doing so it does not go astray or try to do too much.

By: Felix PleÅŸoianu

Felix PleÅŸoianu — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 09:00:04 +0000

That’s good to know, Marcos. A wider consensus on widgets should help adoption a lot. Hey, even with the current state of the market, widgets are quite popular. Once everyone agrees on a format… wow. I can only dream of the possibilities.

By: Marcos Caceres

Marcos Caceres — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 08:30:39 +0000

Felix, you are right that the the widgets spec was an input from Opera. The requirements, however, were developed independently by active members of the WAF working group. So it does not mean that Widgets 1.0 will exclusively follow Opera's work. Far from it. We are looking at as many widget engines as possible to get consensus on features as well as establish best practices. We are also looking forward to widgets in the mobile space where I personally think widgets will really come into their own.

By: Felix PleÅŸoianu

Felix PleÅŸoianu — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:32:59 +0000

My, the guys at Opera would be disappointed to read these comments! The W3C widget specification is nothing else than an attempt to standardize the Opera Widgets (implemented since version 9.0). So a full implementation has been out for “only” 8 months. And speaking of Mac Dashboard widgets, aren’t they based on the same technologies, namely HTML, CSS and Javascript?

By: mikael bergkvist

mikael bergkvist — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:08:41 +0000

I mean it’s not a mature technology yet, a lot of things remains to be seen in regard to innovation.
Apollo from Adobe havent been officially released yet for one thing.

By: deb

deb — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 04:46:41 +0000

not developed yet??? My Mac’s Dashboard is no fantasy. It would be terrific to be able to customise/create my own widgets for whatever device I have and whatever service I desire…. eventually, I imagine a set of custom interfaces made up of networked widgets working with and from each other… for and on behalf of me. Ultimately supporting and sustaining my participation in MY work, social, private, creative networks (LIFE). Hopefully this spec is a start.

By: mikael bergkvist

mikael bergkvist — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:06:09 +0000

No. No. No.
You cant start specifying stuff for technologies that haven’t even been fully developed yet.
That’s like standardizing the car before it was even invented.
Have everyone gone completely bonkers?

By: carmen

carmen — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:26:02 +0000

these devices are all converging to have the same featureset anywyas. i think standards could only encourage more people to step into the widget space. knowing they can write once, and deploy on opera/iphone/osux/openmoko/etc

By: Manny

Manny — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:15:39 +0000

Nice but know but how long will it take for vendors to implement let alone follow them. Pass botched examples, SQL, javascript, HTML, CSS. You can probably name some more!!!

Funny thing is someone always has to be the forerunner before standards even start.

By: Andrew Herron

Andrew Herron — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:09:41 +0000

Did I miss something along the way? If every widget system that’s been developed by a major house has to support a core group of features, you’ll suddenly lose the features specific to a platform.

I can see making something like this for websites where you can easily install the widget on a website, be it for mobile, desktop or otherwise, but to think you can do this for a platform outside of the browser?

They’re talking of being able to create one widget that will work with websites AND operating systems, but how do you create something that’s robust and agnostic? I think the features lost trying to create this one spec to work on all platforms, web or otherwise, isn’t going to have a large impact. People are going to want their platform specific features.