- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:01:53 +1000
- To: "Jon Ferraiolo" <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-appformats@w3.org
>> Is your complaint against including ZIP-package-relative URLs in >> the original content (whether it is 'widget:' or 'zip:'), or is >> your complaint against using a 'zip:' protocol in the original >> content instead of a 'widget:' protocol? > > As far as authoring is concerned, I think they're (almost) equally > bad. Authors would not be allowed to use the scheme. > Quite generally, it would appear that using a URI scheme that's > specific to the packaging format basically leads to a layering > violation -- so far, the widget's DOM layer doesn't need to have a > clue whether it was packaged with zip (as the current spec says), > not packaged at all (as in, installed in a widget engine that just > unpacks things into the file system), or whatever else. So you say that what relative and absolute URIs resolve to internally is an implementation detail? -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Friday, 23 May 2008 23:02:33 UTC