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

Re: ACTION-315: Widget URI scheme thoughts

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:42:00 +0100
To: marcosc@opera.com
Message-Id: <93F4F2B3-E7FF-4535-86B4-88338C645454@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:38:11 UTC