W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: ISSUE-16: Do widgets need their own URI scheme? [Widgets]

From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:02:47 -0400
Message-Id: <6FA789CB-E83E-42B0-A671-54C9A593624D@nokia.com>
To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

Marcos, Arve, All,

FYI, the TAG has a related ISSUE, partly based on the Widgets  
requirement for a URI scheme:


-Regards, Art Barstow

On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:15 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue  
Tracker wrote:

> ISSUE-16: Do widgets need their own URI scheme? [Widgets]
> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/
> Raised by: Arve Bersvendsen
> On product: Widgets
> Some considerations here:
> 1. Widgets, or other locally installed web applications may have  
> multiple instances served from an arbitrary origin: Preinstalled on  
> devices, beamed over bluetooth/IR, installed from a local file  
> system, or over HTTP. Also
> 2. In general, the resources do need to resolve, as the DOM  
> attributes are resolved, and normalized, so "DSC0201.jpg" - when  
> loaded from the local filesystem - becomes for instance file:// 
> localhost/path/to/DSC0201.jpg". The tag: URI scheme specifically  
> says this:
>   Unlike most other URIs, tags can only be used as identifiers, and  
> are not
>   designed to support resolution.
> 3. It is desired to shield the widget from the file system of the  
> runtime (e.g. a widget should not be able to discern information  
> about the file system by examining files loaded from within the  
> widget.
> 4. Widgets should not be able to have unchecked access to resources  
> outside of itself.  Use of the file: scheme makes this (more)  
> difficult.
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:03:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:11 UTC