W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: [widgets] Best practice / recommendation for widget id scheme?

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:53:51 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTimiMf8OfTxgM-DzK6pgzPD9+L29irYssza+_CAu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
>  The widget element's id attribute says "An IRI attribute that denotes an
> identifier for the widget." and is silent on the value of the IRI's scheme.
> What, if anything, do vendors recommend for the scheme?

I guess using a HTTP URI, with no versioning. Best if it points where
information about the widget can be gotten at. Like:


> What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the widget: URI scheme
> [ignoring the process-related issues that currently, the widget URI scheme
> spec is still a LCWD]?

This is not the intention of the Widget URI scheme. This should be
strongly discouraged. The disadvantage is that the widget uri scheme
does not identify the widget itself. And humans can't go looking up a

Alway use a http uri.  Should we make an Authoring note in P&C about this?

Marcos Caceres
Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 15:54:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:27 UTC