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

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

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:29:42 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670810101229m6f261c9fgece78cae5d705396@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

Hi Mark,
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:09 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Marcos Caceres
> <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's still a relative reference, so I have no problem with it.
> What I'm asking is whether an author would ever need to use a full URI
> to a local part?

No, never.

>> The problem with localhost is that you may have Apache or some other
>> web server running that you want to interact with (e.g., during
>> development testing); In which case, you would have to request
>> permission to via the configuration document to access the network
>> (localhost). I don't think it would be good to override localhost
>> unless the widget engine was actually going to serve content. If the
>> widget engine was going to behave like a web server, then yes, by all
>> means use localhost.
> Ok, it doesn't really matter from my POV.
> But with regards to my last remaining question to you (above), if the
> answer is "No", then I think the answer for the URI scheme is "Any
> hierarchical URI scheme".  So if one agent wants to internally use
> file: and another wants to use ftp:, then they can do so and still
> successfully process the same packaged widget.  The choice of the URI
> scheme is an implementation detail.

Ok. I will add  "Any hierarchical URI scheme" as the proposed solution
into the spec.

I will say that, personally, I feel it is irresponsible for the
WebApps WG to not recommend a complete and a secure solution for this
issue. I also fear that not mandating a URI scheme will lead to
interoperability issues (especially going forward into V2, where we
might want to support things like queries and fragments, which
something like file: does not support).

Kind regards,
Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 19:30:25 UTC

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