- From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 16:58:13 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Rees" <jar@creativecommons.org>, "Marcos Caceres" <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "public-pkg-uri-scheme-request@w3.org" <public-pkg-uri-scheme-request@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org> wrote: > I hate to burst ignorantly into a discussion I know little about... but > that's what I'm going to do. Forgive me. > > Regarding the creation of local URIs for use in APIs requiring URIs: I want > to consider, just as a what-if meant for clarification of requirements, the > use of the tag: URI scheme [1], which appears on first blush to be a good > fit. > > Suppose that the desired suffix of the URI is to be zzz. The URI would look > like > > tag:widgets-r-us.org,2008:8948372837/zzz i'm 99% certain this is in the minutes from the F2F, a WUA needs to be able to instantiate multiple discreet instances of a widget, and needs to be able to distinguish them. the instances need to be distinct. Whether distinct instances should be able to enumerate and connect is not currently decided but for future improvement the scheme shouldn't prohibit this.
Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 14:58:51 UTC