- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:11:34 +0200
- To: Aaron Boodman <aa@google.com>
- Cc: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Aaron,
On May 27, 2009, at 23:19 , Aaron Boodman wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> wrote:
>> I haven't read all the threads about the widget URI scheme, but I
>> wanted to contribute this thought:
>>
>> Instead of using a UUID as the authority, you might consider using a
>> public key. You could then require that the widget is signed by the
>> cooresponding private key.
>
> FWIW, this is what we do in Chrome extensions which share some design
> ideas with widgets. It works really well for us and we are super happy
> with it.
Just out of curiosity, would you mind expanding on the "design ideas"
that you share with widgets that make you so happy? We're interested
in happiness :) Also, do you think that beyond design ideas you could
at some point reuse the concrete specifications that we've developed,
and if not why, what's missing, etc.? Thanks!
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 11:12:09 UTC