Talk:Widget engine

message: I'm not sure what the second sentence of this extract means:
Usually these little applications resemble the tiny freeware apps that were developed by enthusiasts during the 80s. However, we must also point out that the majority of widgets are free and therefore its innovative approach and update may be quite limited.
::Yeah, honestly, I was just wondering about that sentence myself.  Someone should scrap that entirely if no one cleans it up (I think I'll come back in a few days and give it a shot myself if no one else feels like it). (edit: oops, I wasn't signed in, heh). --Phil Urich 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and removed it. Innovation is not related to price. --PrePressChris 17:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing 

message: Would it be okay to add a bit about SuperKaramba, seeing as it is a definite Widget engine, and quite popular with extensions on KDE-Look.org? Just wondering, since its Wikipedia page links to this one, but not vice-versa.
T3thys::ben 17:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SuperKaramba? 

message: What is the online equivalent of a widget engine (i.e., a widget engine for widgets that are meant to be used online, on personal websites, blogs, etc.)? Should this article be broadened in scope to include such widgets? SharkD (talk) 03:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Online equivalent?

message: I understand that the list of external links has been removed because it seems to be too close to a list of commercial links. However, there was soome more general articles on this list, including the "what is a mobile widget" article on my blog, and a couple of others....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomsoft (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of external link 

message: Prime example?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.63.60 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh... yes, Opera does in fact support it. The line is referenced. Unless you're aware of another engine that adopted the draft standard before Opera, which I doubt given that it is so new. ɹəəpıɔnı 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera 

message: The concept of small single-purpose applications is probably as old as windowing systems themselves. Consider the xclock and xeyes applications on the X Window System, or similar applications in the Smalltalk environment. The addition of internet content to widgets apparently came later, with the general availability of internet content (i.e. the Web). So internet content on its own wouldn't be a defining characteristic of desktop widgets. 68.8.65.163 (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widget History 

message: BeOS had replicants like a decade ago, likely even before Active Desktop. It was much wider than just putting a browser in the desktop, but also OLE/COM-like, enabling applications to embed others.
One of BeOS applications, BeHappy, embedded the NetPositive browser to display documentations. It has been updated recently to use the NetSurf browser for Haiku.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmu man (talk • contribs) 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BeOS Replicants 

message: "Mobile widgets can maximize screen space use"
Umm ... shouldn't mobile widgets be designed to minimise their screen space use?
:Eh.. no. They should maximise their usage of the very limited space available. ɹəəpıɔnı 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: Just a few points. The w3c widgets "standard" is not yet a standard (as it has not reached recommendation status). Is it ok to change to "widget specification". Also, I dropped the version number from widgets (i.e., the 1.0 is gone, as widgets will be standardized in levels, not versions).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcoscaceres (talk • contribs) 10:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widgets is not yet a standard