Re: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

Hi Giri,  

On Thursday, 18 April 2013 at 5:28 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:  
> We have a difference in understanding about the necessity of what is being proposed in this particular specification, and whether there in fact is a change in technical scope as anticipated by the charter. I believe that Marcos is proposing something new as a replacement to file://, fs://, efs://.

The WebApps WG extensibly discussed different schemes back in 2008 for many many long months, including with the W3C TAG. Some pointers to give you more context:

Use case and requirements:  
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#addressing-scheme

Pointers referring to file:// discussions:  
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/16

Please read also "Joint meeting with TAG Members regarding Widget URI scheme":
http://www.w3.org/2008/10/20-wam-minutes.html#item12

Anyway, it would be great if we could avoid having these discussions *again* (they all lead to app://… please also read the app URI spec and you will quickly realise that file://, fs://, efs:// or whatever are not suitable solutions because they don't meet the use cases and don't work well with Web technologies that require HTTP response semantics).  

Instead of looking at file://, fs://, efs://, maybe you could review the app:// scheme spec? I think that would be more constructive and helpful for the working group. One implementer is already using app: (FxOS), so there is good precedence for standardising it.  

Please note that Chrome also uses it's own URI scheme, which is a part of their security model. It looks like this:
chrome-extension://gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom

Opera used the widget URI scheme:
widget://gighmmpiobklfepjocnamgkkbiglidom  

So, as you can see, it seems that everyone pretty much landed on the same solution for packaged apps.  

Kind regards,
Marcos

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 17:34:22 UTC