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: Sat, 23 May 2009 13:21:19 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640905231021g25f49e00he0dc457f29383765@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:54:17 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> It's perfectly good HTML to use a relative reference inside an href,
>> as I'm sure you know.  Are you suggesting that widgets have a more
>> restrictive processing model for HTML?  I can't find any reference to
>> such a model in the spec.
>
> I think we're talking past each other. I'm talking about the DOM. The href
> _DOM_ attribute of <a> always returns an absolute URL on getting. (I.e. the
> href member of the HTMLAnchorElement interface.)

Right.  That's the same point Arve made.  I don't see a problem with
it.  Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail
of its widget container - the base URI - but it's still up to the
container to permit or deny access to other resources from that widget
when asked to dereference it, whether the widget discovered the URI
via a mechanism such as the one you describe, or even if it simply
guessed it.

Mark.
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 17:21:58 GMT

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