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

Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 10:36:48 +0200
To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, www-tag@w3.org, public-appformats@w3.org
Message-ID: <20080526083648.GC283@iCoaster.does-not-exist.org>

On 2008-05-26 16:06:42 +1000, Marcos Caceres wrote:

>> This seems reminiscent to "thismessage" scheme introduced in
>> RFC 2557 as a way of supplying relative paths in a package
>> – if there are never references from one widget to
>> another, then why does the UUID or random number need to appear
>> in the scheme? Why is there any need for an authority?

> Because this may change in the future. A lot of people want
> cross-widget communication but it is unlikely we will be able to
> get it into the spec for version 1.0 (which we want to get to LC
> by Oct). However, we need something robust enough to handle that
> use case.

It's not just communication across widgets, but communication across
widget instances.  It might very well be desirable to be able to
distinguish separate instances of the same widget.

> Strictly speaking, most implementations of Zip only support
> cp437. UTF-8 support was only added last year (v6.3) and very few
> implementations actually support it.  The encoding of a file name
> is dependent on magic bits in the zip archive (called the General
> Purpose Bit 11 of the Local File Header): only if the bit is set
> is the file name of a file entry is treated as UTF-8.

> Can you please provide the questions that this raises so I can
> address them in the spec?

Think of the cp437 encoded file names as a particularly weird
representation of the "real", unicode, string, and use the latter
one in URI references.

-- 
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 26 May 2008 08:37:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:57 GMT