Re: [widgets] Zip vs GZip Tar

On May 25, 2010, at 10:27 , Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:19 AM, Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com> wrote:
>> W3C's widget specs are mature (i.e., most at CR or LC) and the working
>> group believes them to be technically sound and, with a few
>> extensions, able to meet the use cases of [2] (particularly in light
>> of Google using the crx format to package applications - which is more
>> or less identical on a conceptual level to the W3C Widget work).
> 
> Note: CRX was modified to support this use case. I don't think W3C
> widgets would work without similar modifications. Namely the <content>
> element would need to support absolute URLs, and a few other similar
> changes. I'm not sure what effects this would have on the rest of the
> spec, or if it is desirable.

That sort of change wouldn't be very hard to specify, all that would be needed would be a way to disambiguate absolute URLs from the path references (different element, different attribute, different syntax in the existing attribute — all have their trade-offs) designed in such a way as to be backwards compatible. If there's interest, we can certainly look into it!

-- 
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/

Received on Tuesday, 25 May 2010 09:13:31 UTC