- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 10:13:17 -0400
- To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
This issue has been closed, based on the WG's agreement on August 26. Please see the following for details: <http://www.w3.org/2008/08/26-wam-minutes.html#item03> -Regards, Art Barstow On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:18 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-17: Widgets (not just widget engines) should be able to > specify which proxies they communicate through > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ > > Raised by: Josh Soref > On product: > > From: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008AprJun/ > 0440.html > >> 5:00 PM and as a should, I SHOULD be able to pick a proxy per widget >> however it shouldn't be a requirement (MUST), because some >> systems won't >> want to >> me: yeah, that adds quite a bit of complexity >> timeless.bmo1: (not all widgets are created equal, some are more >> equal than >> others) >> me: sounds like a 2.0 feature >> if someone wants it >> 5:01 PM timeless.bmo1: the problem is that i can easily have some >> widgets >> that i only want to work in some environments >> and some widgets that will need a proxy at some times >> yeah stupid corporate firewalls >> me: yeah, I can already think of use cases >> timeless.bmo1: however, some things shouldn't work at some times >> 5:02 PM i have apps like this >> which may be ip based and don't want them talking to any random >> server at >> that ip, but only via some trusted proxy... but i don't want all >> the other >> widgets to use that trusted proxy >> 5:03 PM or in some cases, i really really don't trust the proxy, >> but it's a >> necessary evil for a certain widget >> me: you think it might be something to consider for 1.0 then? >> timeless.bmo1: sadly yes > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2008 14:14:00 UTC