Re: [Widgets] URI Scheme revisited.... again

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Marcos Caceres
<marcosscaceres@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Please see [1] for TAG discussion about WebApps proposal of widget URI
> scheme. From what I got from the discussion, the TAG seems to agree
> that we likely do need our own URI scheme.

Hmm, have you read the minutes?  Obviously you were part of the
discussion and so perhaps something was said that didn't get minuted,
but it seems quite clear to me from those minutes that the TAG is
asking for more information, and that they were leaning away from a
new URI scheme until they get that information, e.g.;

<Norm> NW: My position is roughly in line with Noah's. If you're going
to allow these things to leak out, or if it's going to be valuable to
share them, then I think the logical thing to do would be to use http:
URIs in that case.

<Norm> ...And if you do that, I'd be highly motivated to see if it's
possible to use http: for all the names so that you don't need to
names.

Of course, that doesn't address my argument that even if they don't
leak out - which you indicated to me that they wouldn't - that the
scheme becomes an implementation detail.

Mark.

Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 14:48:17 UTC