Re: [widgets] 'widget:' protocol

On 2008-05-23 06:17:36 -0700, Jon Ferraiolo wrote:

> I'm not trying to defend 'zip:' or disparage 'widget:' or any other
> alternative, but I don't understand what you are saying. What is the
> difference between the original content of the ZIP using URL references
> that say 'widget:/images/image1.jpg' versus 'zip:/images/image1.jpg'? 

> Is your complaint against including ZIP-package-relative URLs in
> the original content (whether it is 'widget:' or 'zip:'), or is
> your complaint against using a 'zip:' protocol in the original
> content instead of a 'widget:' protocol?

As far as authoring is concerned, I think they're (almost) equally
bad.

Quite generally, it would appear that using a URI scheme that's
specific to the packaging format basically leads to a layering
violation -- so far, the widget's DOM layer doesn't need to have a
clue whether it was packaged with zip (as the current spec says),
not packaged at all (as in, installed in a widget engine that just
unpacks things into the file system), or whatever else.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>