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: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:35:44 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640810101235j5284ce15gfa56e88bb1d564f8@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Marcos Caceres
<marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

Well, the questions I asked of you were intended to discover whether
or not interoperability was impacted by not specifying a URI scheme.
Is there some aspect of this I didn't consider?  Can you give me an
example of an interoperability (or security, as you say) problem
that's created by not specifying a URI scheme?

Received on Friday, 10 October 2008 19:36:24 UTC

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