Re: [widgets] Comments on Widget Signature update (was RE: Widget Signature update)

Marcos

Rather than replicating this, which might be error prone and hard to  
maintain, perhaps Widget Signature should reference P & C for this.  
What do you think ?

regards, Frederick


On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:15 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote:

>
> Hi Frederick,
>
> On 3/17/09 1:01 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>> The latest draft includes the revised text from Thomas.
>>
>> Marcos, are you suggesting we add something more? It sounds like what
>> you are saying here, is that it should be a valid widget file. Isn't
>> that part of P&C checking? I'm not sure what it means to check that  
>> the
>> paths are "as secure as possible."
>
> You might want to check the following section of the P&C [1] and see  
> if
> it is usable in dig sigs. Given that the paths in the <reference>
> elements MUST be zip-relative-paths, the rules for checking the  
> validity
> of those paths may apply to the Widgets Dig Sig spec.
>
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#zip-relative-paths
>

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 19:35:06 UTC