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

Re: Follow-up on widgets scheme discussion with TAG members [Was: Re: [Widgets] URI Scheme revisited.... again]

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:17:21 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670811260917k6d3b13fbt1127be6f8c18c5e6@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Arthur Barstow" <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> * Transparency: Can the scheme be modeled such that it is an implementation
> detail (i.e. names are private to the UA) and thus never [publicly] exposed?
> What are the consequences if the scheme leaks? If the scheme will be public,
> is there a need for a registry?
>

I can't answer any of this because we don't have a proposal for a
scheme yet :( Arve and I have made numerous proposals but none have
gotten traction yet:

widget://widgetEngine/pack.wgt/some/path/to/file#frag
widget://pack.wgt/some/path/to/file.png#frag
widget://{uuid}/path/to/file.png#frag
widget://path/to/file#frag

If someone else wants to have a go, but all means do so. I'm also not
sure how to proceed with R6 or R36 in the requirements doc. If anyone
has any additional text they want to add to those requirements to
please the TAG, then please send some text to the list.

> * Update scenarios: How would the widget scheme fit into various update
> scenarios?
>

I don't see any overlap between the two.

> * Extensibility: What, if any, extensibility mechanism is required for the
> widget scheme? What are the related use cases?
>

The only use case I see is that the widget URI scheme starts behaving
like a HTTP server, in which case generic URI syntax mechanisms apply
(e.g., query strings "?").

Kind regards,
Marcos
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 17:18:02 GMT

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