Re: W3C's Widgets obsoleted

Theo,

As Jose said we already had few exchanges about this issue. On one hand
application package format is not a top priority, on the other hand
everyone agree that Widget replacement will have to be address in the
future.

At the time of Widget selection few years ago, RPM was missing some
features (e.g. a simple model to sign files in a package, declare
privileges, ...). As today most of those limitations disappeared, also
replacing Widget by RPM should not be a huge work. Everyone understand
that such a move would open the door to nice features (eg: application
store, dependencies management, .....)

Conclusion: one day AGL community will have to address this issue

Fulup

On 07/05/2019 15:41, José Bollo wrote:
> On 07/05/2019 10:09, Theo BUENO via automotive-discussions wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As I was reading W3C's reference for Packaged Web Applications [1]
>> (widgets), it came to my attention that W3C obsoleted [2][3] this
>> recommendation since October 2018.
>
> Hi Theo,
>
> Thanks for bringing attention on that fact.
>
>> I was not able to find discussions about this in the mailing list
>> archives or on Jira. Is this decision gonna affect AGL's Application
>> Framework ?
>
> I already knew that but hadn't communicate about it because I couldn't
> figure how to announce it and what to do with that low priority
> information.
>
> On my opinion, that abandon recognizes the little adoption of that
> specification.
>
> AGL uses that specification for the widgets because it is used by
> Tizen. In my opinion that specification was really good. The main
> feature of that specification used by AGL are the config file and the
> signatures. AGL's binder also support internationalization mechanism
> of that specification but I'm not sure that it is used much currently.
>
> You asked about the implication it has on the application framework of
> AGL.
>
> First of all, as I wrote above, it is perhaps a low priority issue.
> There is probably no real urgency to switch to an other format.
>
> Switching to a new packaging has to be considered at the end.
> Unfortunately, the packaging format that replace that obsolete one
> doesn't look to fit the requirements of a valuable packaging system
> for AGL.
>
> My personal opinion is that afterward, it is a chance for AGL because
> it will allow to switch to a best packaging format.
>
> If you want to start a discussion on that topic, here are some
> requirements:
>  - authoring and signing
>  - compressing
>  - configuration file
>  - one or more components per package
>  - incremental difference
>  - debugging support
>
> Some of my company think that RPM are good candidates, notably because
> a dependency mechanism comes natively. Some other think that tar.xz
> are enough.
>
> Best regards
> José Bollo
>
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> Théo Bueno.
>>
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/
>> [2] https://github.com/w3ctag/obsoletion/issues/3
>> [3] https://github.com/w3c/transitions/issues/65
>> Packaged Web Apps (Widgets) - Packaging and XML Configuration (Second
>> Edition) - World Wide Web Consortium
>> (W3C)<https://www.w3.org/TR/widgets/>
>> Abstract. This specification updates the Widget Packaging and XML
>> Configuration, and addresses some errata found in the original
>> recommendation. It also updates the name of the specification, to be
>> more in vogue with industry trends towards the naming of this class
>> of application.. This specification standardizes a packaging format
>> and metadata for a class of software known commonly as ...
>> www.w3.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> automotive-discussions mailing list
>> automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> automotive-discussions mailing list
> automotive-discussions@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/automotive-discussions