W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org > February 2009

Re: ACTION-315: Widget URI scheme thoughts

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:28:34 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670902270228m3b1c94c9n4c41908d79d9efbd@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org, "public-webapps@w3.org WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-webapps-request@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> My opinion is that having a widget URI scheme is not worth all of this
> complexity. I propose that the W3C ship Widgets 1.0 as quickly as possible
> with less flexibility on URI addressing. I think it is acceptable for a 1.0
> release if all assets in the ZIP can only be addressed by relative
> addressing without allowing "/" at the front of the relative URL. In my
> experience a few years ago at Adobe which used ZIP packaging for its Digital
> Editions products (based on IDPF standards) and its Mars technology (PDF in
> XML/ZIP), people were able to deal with the restriction that relative
> addressed could not start with "/". I definitely know that OpenAjax Widgets
> get by without a widget URI scheme, and I'll 99% sure that Google/OpenSocial
> Gadgets doesn't have such a mechanism.

Google Gadgets resolved to HTTP. I assume that Open Ajax Gadgets, if
they are embedded into Web pages, will do the same.  If Open Ajax
gadgets are to be embedded into other context, and you don't have a
URI scheme, then you might have security issues.

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 27 February 2009 10:29:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 February 2009 10:29:25 GMT