- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:16:49 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Cc: Larry Masinter <LMM@acm.org>, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, public-appformats@w3.org, public-appformats-request@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org
On 2008-06-17 16:14:20 +1000, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Irrespective of encoding issues, the premise remains that the HTTP > protocol is not suitable for widgets and hence we need "widgets://" You mean that the http URI scheme is not suitable for 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 > > -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 14:17:26 UTC