- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:35:08 +0100
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Mark, On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Marcos Caceres > <marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote: >>> Marcos - IIRC, there was little or no support for a widget URI scheme >>> in the discussion on www-tag. Why are you continuing to move ahead >>> with it? >> >> Sorry Mark, I'm afraid that your recollection on this issue is wrong. >> Firstly, I was not aware that the TAG dictated what Web Apps works on. > > You misunderstand me, Marcos. I said "the discussion on www-tag", not > "What the TAG said". I was hoping the push back from myself, Roy > Fielding, Larry Masinter and others would have convinced you that a > new URI scheme is undesirable and unnecessary. > Ok, sorry. You are right. I personally agree with what they say, and I even agreed with Timbl with regards to using HTTP but the WG did not support that because it makes a widget engine very hard to implement. However, I still don't think that anyone has really propose an viable alternative that meets the requirements. (Also, I know I'm being stubborn about this, but, as editor, I'm just voicing the working groups position). Apologies, lets put all this aside because it's being counter productive. The question is simple: what should DOM nodes resolve to for resources inside a widget? <snip> > Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those > requirements. So why not, for the sake of argument, file:? Yes, file: might be ok. But where is the spec that defines file:? I can't find it. Marcos -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 19:35:50 UTC