W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > August 2008

Re: URI schemes - is widget: OK, but xri: not?

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:28:27 -0700
Message-Id: <AAE86064-9100-4513-9371-2A988A2C82DD@gbiv.com>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>
To: "Schleiff, Marty" <marty.schleiff@boeing.com>

On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Schleiff, Marty wrote:
> I haven't seen any messages complaining about a URI scheme for  
> widget:. I've seen plenty of messages complaining about a URI  
> scheme for xri:.

Defining a special addressing scheme for widget is a bad idea.

As has been pointed out many times over the years, packaging
multiple representations into a single archive cannot rely on the
ability to rewrite references within the content of individual
parts because the individual parts may be cryptographically
signed before the package is created.  The only solution that
is known to work for all of these scenarios is to embed a catalog
part that tells the local resolution process which parts of the
archive correspond to which URI references, thereby allowing any
URI reference to be used to refer to any part.  If a part is
created without its own URI, the cid scheme is the recommended
choice for minting new URIs within a package.  If a packaging
format needs to control references to outside content, it should
do so as part of the local resolution algorithm, not by minting
an application-specific identifier.

This should apply to all such bundling mechanisms, whether they
be web archives, zip containers, OSGi bundles, or waf widgets.


Cheers,

Roy T. Fielding                            <http://roy.gbiv.com/>
Chief Scientist, Day Software              <http://www.day.com/>
Received on Friday, 8 August 2008 00:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:03 GMT