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

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

From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:26:19 +0200
Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6F01CE81-E2CC-4333-9D23-6E8DB37449F3@berjon.com>
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
On May 22, 2009, at 20:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
> Ah, right, I didn't realize it was related to a discussion Marcos and
> I had last year;
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/thread.html#msg50
>
> 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?

Reading that thread I don't see a consensus emerging one way or  
another, and a lot of options appear to be considered that seem to be  
out of scope (or too close to the metal) for this specification. I see  
some arguments around using file: that could be used, but none seem to  
explain how it could be without entirely precluding other file: access  
(which could potentially be needed) or minting special names (e.g. a  
special file host), which strikes me as a bad idea.

Would you care to outline what specifically you had in mind?

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:26:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT