- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:42:00 +0100
- To: marcosc@opera.com
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org
Marcos, can you explain what use case would *not* be addressed by the manifest- based proposal that started this thread? Thanks, -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> On 16 Mar 2009, at 15:39, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Hi Larry, > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote: >> other choices: >> >> * use thismessage: from MHTML >> * fix file: >> (packages only work for http: and local >> file system, not ftp:, but not a big >> restriction in practice). > > > packages and configuration documents should be kept URI neutral (so > one can use them over HTTP as various projects are already doing). > However, we still want to specify a URI scheme for widget that run > locally so engines to fall back to file:// > > Having said that, we have found use cases for access of resources > withing a widget that is residing on a HTTP server. WebApps would be > interesting in continuing to pursue previously proposed solutions. To > recap. We need: > > * An internal URI scheme (be it tag:// or widget://) > * An external access URI scheme for access to things inside the > package over a HTTP: > > For example > > http://example.com/widget.wgt!/some/resource.html > > The JAR URI scheme seems like a good candidate. > > kind regards, > Marcos > > -- > Marcos Caceres > http://datadriven.com.au >
Received on Monday, 16 March 2009 14:45:33 UTC