RE: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th

Hi Marcos,
Thanks for the quick response.

Re: removal of Sec. 6.4 (section on dereferencing):

> Can you explain why you think this section should be dropped? (or if it's in the other email, just let me know.)

I do cover some technical issues with this section in the other email.  In general, we believe this section is overly-prescriptive, and does not allow for other valid approaches.  We believe the handling of XHR requests targeted to files in a package can be left up to the implementation.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 9:15 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: publish FPWD of "app: URI scheme"; deadline April 26th

Hi Giri, 

On Monday, April 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:

> Qualcomm Innovation Center requests the following changes before this doc is moved to FPWD:
> 
> 1. Abstract be changed from "This specification defines the app: URI scheme and rules for dereferencing an app: URI, which can be used to address resources inside a package (e.g., a packaged application). The dereferencing model relies on HTTP semantics to return resources in a manner akin to a HTTP GET request. Doing so allows this URI scheme to be used with other technologies that rely on HTTP responses to function as intended, such as [XHR]."
> 
> to
> 
> " This specification defines the app: URI scheme, which can be used to address resources inside a package (e.g., a packaged application). This URI scheme may be used with other technologies that rely on HTTP responses, such as [XHR]."
Thanks for the suggested simplification. However, I think I would prefer to keep the current text, as it more fully describes the behavior and how it works. I'm just starting on your other email, so I may reconsider this once I read that. 
> 2. Section 6.3: Removal of the statement "However, when dereferencing, the query and fragment components don't play any part in locating a file inside of package" and all ensuing text in this section.

Can you explain why you think this section should be dropped? (or if it's in the other email, just let me know.)
> 3. Removal of Section 6.4.
> 
> Additional: I have provided comments on other non-normative and normative sections in another email: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sysapps/2013Apr/0200.html.

> 
> Additional: I believe Section 1 needs a total re-write, but would like to see the Editor's response to my comments before suggesting appropriate text for this section.
Sure, trying to work my way through it now - it's a biggy! :)  
> Additional: I would recommend under the Security Considerations section that the text be modified to be "The user agent needs to make sure that a symbolic link (or similar) inside a package does not break out of the package and end up pointing to a physical file on the end-users device." I also don't believe everyone has a common understanding of what "break out of the package" means in this context, so it would be good to clarify this phrase.

Good suggestion! Created a bug:
https://github.com/sysapps/app-uri/issues/4

Received on Monday, 22 April 2013 16:25:53 UTC