- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:21:52 +0100
- 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 UTC