W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

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

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:47:50 +0100
Message-ID: <b21a10670903171347g23afb8al804fea6fcbd9dfb2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 3/17/09, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote:
> 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 ?
>

I think that should be fine.
> 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
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 20:48:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:30 GMT