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

RE: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme

From: Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 15:22:58 -0700
To: "Larry Masinter" <LMM@acm.org>
Cc: "'Marcos Caceres'" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-appformats@w3.org, public-appformats-request@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF485807F2.6EE9BB92-ON88257457.0079D0C3-88257457.007AF419@us.ibm.com>

Hi Larry,
Comment ša va?

While I understand the strong preference for referencing real
specifications from real standards bodies, in the particular case of ZIP,
there are already a few cases where leading industry formats felt it was OK
to reference the PKWare site. Marcos's blog entry
(http://datadriven.com.au/tag/widgets-10/) provides links to the specs for
JAR, ODF, OOXML/OPC, and OEBPS, all of which reference the PKWare app note.
It is certainly true that the ZIP spec is subject to change at the whims of
a particular company; therefore, the key thing is to make sure that your
own spec clearly defines which particular set of features from the ZIP app
note are required.

Jon




                                                                           
             "Larry Masinter"                                              
             <LMM@acm.org>                                                 
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             public-appformats         "'Marcos Caceres'"                  
             -request@w3.org           <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>          
                                                                        cc 
                                       <www-tag@w3.org>,                   
             05/28/08 03:06 PM         <public-appformats@w3.org>          
                                                                   Subject 
                                       RE: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme    
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





One set of questions the current specification raises are similar to the
ones that were raised during discussions of registering a zip-based MIME
type: that the referenced ZIP specification itself is not a standard,
implementations vary, and that a simple reference to the PKWare "ZIP"
specification wasn't sufficient to insure interoperability:

http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-types/2007-September/001915.html

In addition, as I also mentioned in my previous message, I think that a URI
scheme that's restricted to ZIP may be too narrow. I agree with the
sentiments that led to a proposal for some way of covering rooted
directories, whether packaged or not, although I'm not certain about the
opera proposal itself:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/opera_browser/3650419.htm

Larry









graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic05470.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic05470.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 22:25:50 GMT

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