W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 09:54:17 -0400
Message-ID: <e9dffd640905230654t5901fb31pb5b935414038b37e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:33:21 +0200, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
>> wrote:
>>> <a>.href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else
>>> would be a bad hack and counter to how it has been designed.
>> You mean the href attribute as used in the config file?  I'm only
>> talking about @src there AFAICT, as well as other linking mechanisms
>> inside the widget content, e.g. html:href in HTML.
>> That said, it does seem a bit odd to have an attribute called href
>> that doesn't mean the same as html:href.  But I don't wish to dig into
>> that here and now; it's not a big deal.
> I just meant an HTML file in use within the widget.

It's perfectly good HTML to use a relative reference inside an href,
as I'm sure you know.  Are you suggesting that widgets have a more
restrictive processing model for HTML?  I can't find any reference to
such a model in the spec.

Received on Saturday, 23 May 2009 13:54:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:12:53 UTC