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

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

From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:44:43 +0200
To: "Arve Bersvendsen" <arveb@opera.com>
Message-Id: <FFF0FDB2-29AD-487E-A29F-E78F8FE67A92@w3.org>
Cc: "Jean-Claude Dufourd" <jean-claude.dufourd@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-pkg-uri-scheme <public-pkg-uri-scheme@w3.org>
On 27 May 2009, at 09:34, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:

> The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this  
> front.  Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and  
> that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of  
> their own, the situation may well arise where they have specified  
> something that would either be insecure (eg. file:), incompatible  
> ( again, file:) or inappropriate (all schemes that fail to make  
> query strings and fragment identifiers useful)


1. There is (again) no reason why the base URI that is chosen to  
absolutize relative URI references needs to be the same URI that is  
used to construct the origin.  The argument that the URI scheme used  
to absolutize is somehow "too insecure" depends on a specific design  
decision that can go either way; in that context, I'm still waiting  
for your answer to this note:
See also Adam Barth's note here:

2. Where does the requirement for query strings suddenly come from?  I  
can't find it in the current editor's draft, and (beyond a side  
discussion with timeless) don't recall conversation about it.
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 07:44:50 UTC

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