W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [Widgets] URI Scheme revisited.... again

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 01:00:53 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640810082200g4b5abe05u1301dd94251dcf03@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those
>> requirements.  So why not, for the sake of argument, file:?
> Yes, file: might be ok. But where is the spec that defines file:? I
> can't find it.

Good question.  At least twice during the past 15 years or so,
somebody's tried to write a spec for it, but both times that's ended
in failure (e.g.
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-hoffman-file-uri-03.txt ).  I brought
it up only as an example, because it doesn't carry all that "network
resource" mental baggage that many people commonly associate with
schemes such as ftp or http.  It's still possible to use it of course,
as long as the fuzzy areas are avoided.

But I wonder whether the scheme really matters very much.  What kind
of intra-package references do you expect to be able to resolve?  Will
they all be relative, or will there be absolute ones?  If it's just
relative references, then any hierarchical one will do, as the
consuming user agent can just mint their own base, be it an http URI,
a file URI, or otherwise.

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2008 06:16:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC