My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[Caroline Arms]

Makoto,

I'm certainly prepared to bow to your expertise.  I agree that it's not central to WG4.   If you believe the terminology in OPC needs fixing anyway, we should not recommend it to the Widget folks.

   Caroline

Caroline Arms
Library of Congress Contractor
Co-compiler of Sustainability of Digital Formats resource
http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/formats/

** Views expressed are personal and not necessarily those of the institution **
>>> "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> 10/31/09 6:25 PM >>>
>  So are you suggesting that we compare and contrast OPC/Widget terminology 
> and make suggestions to the Web App WG to change theirs to avoid any
> potential confusion associated with common terms with different
> definitions?

I am afraid that I have not made myself clear.

Having seen the widget package spec and OPC, I do not believe that any 
changes to the terminology or concepts in widget are necessary.  I 
am just saying that we shouldn't ask them to study OPC and change their 
terminology or concepts.

Will somebody write a detailed comparison paper and become a project
editor for a comparison annex or profile?   If not, what can WG4 achive?
Will we just cause trobules to the Web App WG?

Cheers,
Makoto