Re: [widgets] 'widget:' protocol

>> 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.

Authors would not be allowed to use the scheme.

> 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.

So you say that what relative and absolute URIs resolve to internally
is an implementation detail?

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au