RE: Request to move app: URI to FPWD

> 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.  

This is a reasonable request.  I will do so and provide written feedback in addition to the limited items I raised last week.

-Giri

-----Original Message-----
From: Marcos Caceres [mailto:w3c@marcosc.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 10:34 AM
To: Mandyam, Giridhar
Cc: Robin Berjon; Mounir Lamouri; wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; public-sysapps@w3.org
Subject: 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 19:26:35 UTC