W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 15:54:20 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640905221254q21f8f9ccp9ba8be759eb73d49@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
>> relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was
>> dropped about that time.  Has some new requirement emerged since then
>> that makes relative references an undesirable option?
>
> The problem here is that no user agent implementation I am aware of uses
> 'relative' URIs when resolving nodes.  If you provide <img
> src="foo/bar/baz.png" /> - they all compose an absolute URI from the string
> representing the relative URI, and expose that when you query for the
> attribute value, so putting my markup fragment into a document at the root
> of http://example.com/:
>
> <html>
> <img src="foo/bar/baz.png" />
> <script>
> // The following Outputs http://example.com/foo/bar/baz.png
> alert(document.images[0].src);
> </script>

Sure.  Why is that a problem?

Mark.
Received on Friday, 22 May 2009 19:55:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT