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: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:21:52 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670810130821q43fafbdfu331520581be3c446@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
> file:, despite the name, doesn't have to be mapped to the file system.
>  Its scope could be limited in exactly the same way you've limited
> widget: there.  Similarly, ftp or http - even part of the space -
> *could* be mapped to the file system.  So the issue you're worried
> about has little to do with the URI scheme.

That's absolutely true. It could be that, for instance, we recommend
"file://widgetEngine/widget.wgt/path/to/file" or just
"file:///widget.wgt/path/to/file". But we are still stuck on the fact
that file: hasn't been formally standardized anywhere. Does that
matter?


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 13 October 2008 15:22:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT