My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[Shawn Villaron]

Murata-san,

I'm trying to catch up on this thread, and I was hoping you could help me understand what you're suggesting.  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?  Do we really think that they'd be open to terminology changes?  I suspect that if they made the same request to us, we'd politely decline to change our terms in OPC, especially those in the schemas themselves.

How central to our WG4 goals is the Widgets standard?  I worry about spending too much WG4 time on this given the other workflows underway ( 8601 dates, for example ).

Thanks,

shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 8:41 PM
To: e-sc34-wg4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

Wearing my expert hat....

> 2) Terminology differences frequently cause problems for users of 
> standards.  The OPC specification includes conceptual terms and 
> references potentially relevant to the Widgets specification, notably 
> in areas such as the ZIP subset, part concept, the part-to-name 
> mapping, the pack scheme and
> UTF-8 usage. We commend consideration of these to the Web Applications 
> WG.

Japan recently submitted several DRs about OPC (09-0280 thru 09-0293).
I believe that terms and concepts in OPC are sometimes chaotic and have to be revisited.

I think that WG4 experts should review both OPC and Widget packaging and propose specific changes to the Web Applications WG rather than asking them to learn from 29500-2.

Cheers,
Makoto