- From: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 07:14:37 -0400
- To: Marcos Caceres <m.caceres@qut.edu.au>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos - I also noticed a related comment from Roy Fielding: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2008Aug/0066.html> On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:02 AM, ext Arthur Barstow wrote: > > Marcos, Arve, All, > > FYI, the TAG has a related ISSUE, partly based on the Widgets > requirement for a URI scheme: > > <http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/61> > > -Regards, Art Barstow > > On Jun 26, 2008, at 4:15 AM, ext Web Applications Working Group > Issue Tracker wrote: > >> >> ISSUE-16: Do widgets need their own URI scheme? [Widgets] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/ >> >> Raised by: Arve Bersvendsen >> On product: Widgets >> >> Some considerations here: >> 1. Widgets, or other locally installed web applications may have >> multiple instances served from an arbitrary origin: Preinstalled >> on devices, beamed over bluetooth/IR, installed from a local file >> system, or over HTTP. Also >> 2. In general, the resources do need to resolve, as the DOM >> attributes are resolved, and normalized, so "DSC0201.jpg" - when >> loaded from the local filesystem - becomes for instance file:// >> localhost/path/to/DSC0201.jpg". The tag: URI scheme specifically >> says this: >> >> Unlike most other URIs, tags can only be used as identifiers, >> and are not >> designed to support resolution. >> 3. It is desired to shield the widget from the file system of the >> runtime (e.g. a widget should not be able to discern information >> about the file system by examining files loaded from within the >> widget. >> 4. Widgets should not be able to have unchecked access to >> resources outside of itself. Use of the file: scheme makes this >> (more) difficult. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2008 11:24:21 UTC