- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:33:42 -0400
- To: ext Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Marcos Rather than replicating this, which might be error prone and hard to maintain, perhaps Widget Signature should reference P & C for this. What do you think ? regards, Frederick On Mar 17, 2009, at 8:15 AM, ext Marcos Caceres wrote: > > Hi Frederick, > > On 3/17/09 1:01 PM, Frederick Hirsch wrote: >> The latest draft includes the revised text from Thomas. >> >> Marcos, are you suggesting we add something more? It sounds like what >> you are saying here, is that it should be a valid widget file. Isn't >> that part of P&C checking? I'm not sure what it means to check that >> the >> paths are "as secure as possible." > > You might want to check the following section of the P&C [1] and see > if > it is usable in dig sigs. Given that the paths in the <reference> > elements MUST be zip-relative-paths, the rules for checking the > validity > of those paths may apply to the Widgets Dig Sig spec. > > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/#zip-relative-paths > regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 19:35:06 UTC