IDE Minutes 2009 03-10
- Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
- Javier Pedemonte, IBM
- Kin Blas, Adobe
- Lori Hylan-Cho, Aptana
- Adam Peller, IBM
- Nitin Dahyabhai, IBM
- Bertrand Le Roy, Microsoft
Jon: Just so everyone is aware, the Gadgets TF has resumed work on the mashup features that we split off into a separate spec. First meeting was yesterday. Good progress at that meeting. If you need further information, either review the minutes from the meeting or send me an email. Any questions?
(1) <require type="library"> versus <library>
Jon: In email, I presented 3 choices. Four of us voted in email for option #3 (Scott, Rich, Lori, Jon) where the new <library> contains <require> elements. This allows us to remove the 'library' attribute. Looks like we have consensus. Any disagreements?
RESOLUTION Option #3. Add <library> element as container for <require> elements, which loses its 'library' attribute.
(2) Language schema is too rigid: 'id' on <widget>, 'default' on <property>
Jon: I was thinking that hand-coders will leave these attributes off and tools will be forgiving anyway. Kin responded in email and said he wants to keep these attributes as required, right?
Nitin: I agree. 'id' needs to be there.
Kin/Nitin: We will reject a widget if those attributes are not there.
Kin: Dreamweaver won't build a package if the attributes are not there. We will tell the user they need to fix their widget.
Jon: OK, then. Given that, I'll withdraw my proposal.
Adam: You could use 'undefined' for all datatypes. Won't break but bad default for string values.
Lori: What do you do with undefined? Safer to keep it as required.
RESOLUTION Leave 'id' on <widget>, 'default' on <property> as required attributes