W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [widgets] Comments on Widgets 1.0: Packaging and configuration, 9.1 Processing rules

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:43:07 +0200
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps@w3.org
Message-Id: <C2E97BBB-5029-4AAA-A7B5-8940F0E8D306@berjon.com>
To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
Hi all,

sorry I didn't jump in earlier, I was taken with entirely different  
considerations.

François is entirely right in his evaluation of the way in which  
widget URIs work, which is to say that in a document at the root of  
the widget you can't treat <a href='/foo'> and <a href='foo'> any  
different. Or at least, not without deciding that we have our own  
rules for relative URI reference absolutisation, which I fervently  
hope we don't.

I think that there are two ways to resolve this comment:

  - drop the distinction that's in the spec between /foo and foo in  
config.xml
  - make it very clear that that distinction exists only in config.xml  
(which uses paths, not URIs)

Since I don't personally see a strong use case for the distinction,  
I'm happy either way. Technically I have a small preference for the  
first option, process-wise I prefer the clarification.

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 12:43:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:32 GMT