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

RE: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme

From: Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) <skw@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:29:06 +0000
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
CC: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, "public-appformats@w3.org" <public-appformats@w3.org>, "public-appformats-request@w3.org" <public-appformats-request@w3.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>
Message-ID: <233101CD2D78D64E8C6691E90030E5C802860B0518@GVW1120EXC.americas.hpqcorp.net>

Hello Marcos,

> Regardless, we need the TAG's support resolving this
> issue sooner than later.

We discussed this topic on our June 19th call.

The TAG is interested in working with you to address the more general problem of referring to items within a packages - something that would generalised for .jars, .zip and the like. We expect that doing so would also address the needs that motivate the wiget URI scheme you are currently proposing.

Can you be more specific about the TAG support you need?

Regards

Stuart Williams
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England

[Tracker this is ACTION-162]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Marcos Caceres
> Sent: 17 June 2008 07:14
> To: Larry Masinter
> Cc: Jon Ferraiolo; public-appformats@w3.org;
> public-appformats-request@w3.org; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org> wrote:
> > Perhaps this is just a problem in the writeup that you
> allow both cp437 and
> > utf8-range?
> >
>
> Yes, it was a mistake on my part. The widget URI scheme will always be
> represented as UTF-16 in the DOM (i think) and UTF-8 internally.
>
> For a bit of background, the Zip specification states that a path for
> a zip file entry is, by default, interpreted as CP437 unless
> explicitly marked as UTF-8. However, it was wrong of me to have
> mentioned CP437 for paths as once it is processed by the widget
> engine, it will be converted to Unicode.
>
> Irrespective of encoding issues, the premise remains that the HTTP
> protocol is not suitable for widgets and hence we need "widgets://"
> scheme. We need the TAG to help us explore using HTTP to meet our
> requirements for widgets. If together we can either prove HTTP usable
> or unsuitable for widgets, then we can either discard or adopt
> "widget://". Regardless, we need the TAG's support resolving this
> issue sooner than later.
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
> http://standardssuck.org
>
>
Received on Friday, 20 June 2008 11:31:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:58 GMT