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

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

From: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:35:19 +0200
To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@berjon.com>, "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uzmv45l3byn2jm@galactica>
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:26:19 +0200, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> 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.

In my opinion, the "file:" protocol needs to be avoided *at all costs*.   
User agents have, in over fifteen years of trying, not managed to agree on  
how to implement it interoperably, varying from how to encode drive and  
host names (on some operating systems) to how you deal with path traversal  
and content protection issues.  Neither have they managed to agree on what  
"origin" means, or whether it is acceptable to accept active content in  
this context.

We could spend man-years in trying to come up with something  
"interoperable" and be exactly where we were yesterday.

-- 
Arve Bersvendsen

Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:36:05 GMT

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