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

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

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:56:24 +0300
Cc: "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <40D85F5D-825A-4E62-96B9-14D4320E698D@iki.fi>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>

On Oct 13, 2008, at 17:59, Mark Baker 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.

In an agent that supports both normal file/ftp/http URIs and widgets,  
special casing things like that seems troublesome on surface.

What problem is solved by avoiding minting a new scheme and instead  
violating the principle of least surprise with an old scheme? Aren't  
URIs extensible at the scheme point in order to avoid forcing  
implementors to give special contextual meaning to existing schemes?

Henri Sivonen
Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2008 07:57:06 UTC

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