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

Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:48:53 +0200
Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-pkg-uri-scheme <public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org>
Message-Id: <77E22373-8A74-4840-A40F-1AA16C2DE81F@berjon.com>
To: Jean-Claude Dufourd <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>
On May 27, 2009, at 10:15 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
> Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
>> The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this  
>> front.  Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and  
>> that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme  
>> of their own, the situation may well arise where they have  
>> specified something that would either be insecure (eg. file:),  
>> incompatible ( again, file:) or inappropriate (all schemes that  
>> fail to make query strings and fragment identifiers useful)
>>
> JCD: I am unconfortable with such thinking that standards makers  
> somehow know better than implementors (and I am a standard maker).

As it happens, Arve is an implementer.

> This is a case where you would expose the problem in an informative  
> part of the spec and propose (not mandate) a working solution to  
> implementers.

I don't see how that would work — how does an optional specification  
help interoperability.

> If it is not seen by the author

But, as has been explained before, it is.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:49:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:49:34 GMT