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

Re: Sketch of an idea to address widget/package addressing with fragID syntax and media-type defn.

From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:21:09 +0000
Message-ID: <b21a10670812041421j7b402558v48066bda5893d338@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-pkg-uri-scheme-request@w3.org" <public-pkg-uri-scheme-request@w3.org>

Hi Stuart,

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 8:02 PM, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)
<skw@hp.com> wrote:
> Marcos,
>
> The TAG suggested that I re-post the idea that I floated at the beginning of this thread on the new list at public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org and encourage any continuation of this thread to take place there - which I have now done [1].
>
> Also, with some irony, I think that I'm beginning to get a better understanding of your problem, the key for me being your assertion in an earlier messages:
>
>        "I think we have different goals in respect to [3], and that might be
>        causing me confusion. For instance, Widgets do not have a need to
>        remotely access and reference items within a web accessible package.
>        Conversely, Web apps just needs to access files within a locally
>        stored package."
>
> Your problem is centered around how to generate absolute URI from package relative URI driven primarily by a need for API compatibility rather than a need to be able to make global sharable references.
>

yes :) I know, that's a bit short sighted.

>I don't know whether "...do not need to..." means simply "...don't..." or even more strongly "...will never have to...". If the possibility exists then I think that your requirements need to take that into account. OTOH if it is *never* going to happen... I'll have to scratch my head a bit more to think about how you'd come up with a base URI and what the risks were of essentially a locally scoped identifier escaping into the wild by accident.
>

I think we are both starting to see each others' position more
clearly, which is great. So, to be clear: at this moment in time, in
what we are specifying for Widgets 1.0, our position is that that
widgets "don't" need to remotely access or reference items within a
Web accessible package. However, this does not means we would not want
to do that in the future. So if that functionality is specified as
part of this effort, then that is a good thing and widgets may use it.

In regards to the URI leaking. Admittedly, as WebApps does not
actually have any concrete proposal for a widget:// URI scheme, I
honestly have not given any thought to identifiers escaping into the
wild by accident. The first hurdle has been to prove that a new URI
scheme is even needed. I'm not sure if WebApps has successfully even
jumped that first hurdle yet.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to working with everyone on addressing
[3], but hopefully people will also be inclined to help us with the
problem we have with widgets.

Kind regards,
Marcos
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2008 22:21:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:48:08 GMT