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

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

From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:02:51 +0300
Message-ID: <26b395e60808270402o61667120pc611faeff199e20e@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing

On Aug 7, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> 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.

There's a misconception here.

A widget is a representation of an application existing on some system
with no correlation to other resources.
In a sense, a widget is more similar to for instance a Debian package
than to a web page.
Web technologies can be used to author these applications.

There is no http or other network resource to which the resources in a
widget correspond.

Creating a widget does not involve "packaging a web page as a widget"
it involves *writing* a widget.

> If a part is
> created without its own URI, the cid scheme is the recommended
> choice for minting new URIs within a package.

webapps have looked at cid
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2111.txt>
Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators

We have found cid: unsuitable for the specification because it's based
on single mime resources and the widgets specification is based on
zip.
Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:03:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:04 GMT