One of my biggest worries regarding giving the WEG to Apache is I want other wave providers (e.g. Rizzoma) to see the WEG as unbiased, and having the same organization own the WEG and WIAB would not really help that image.
—Zachary “Gamer_Z.” Yaro On Jul 17, 2013 9:19 AM, "Ali Lown" <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > So... What do we want to do about this? > > The code to implement this in Wave is sitting in my repo > (https://github.com/alown/wave/releases/tag/waveextensionsgallery), > and can be put in for tidying and review at any point. > > I think it is worth doing, but I don't feel it is 'correct' to put it > in as the default extensions source whilst WEG is hosted at/by a > third-party. > > If WEG was donated to Apache (This was discussed in a hypothetical > form), then I don't see a problem with using it. > > Ali > > On 1 May 2013 20:41, Ali Lown <a...@lown.me.uk> wrote: > >> - The current gadget data includes primary and secondary categories. > >>> Can you make this information available over the api? (Assuming you > >>> have it?) > >> The gallery does not currently allow secondary categories. Do you think > >> that would be worth adding? > > > > I was merely raising it as a possible point. Though we don't make use > > of it currently in the UI, so I don't think it is very important > > concept. > > > >>> - Adding any of the gadgets currently results in a 'Port error: Could > >>> not establish connection. Receiving end does not exist.' message from > >>> Chrome 27, but seems to work fine in Firefox 19.0.2. > >> What do you mean when you say “adding...gadgets”? Are the gadget URLs > from > >> the gallery invalid? > > > > This was a more general point, and not directly related to you/your > > code (rather at any of the other maintainers reading this thread, to > > point out that gadgets appear to be fairly broken at the moment. [When > > also considering WAVE-389].) > > > > Ali >
