- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:47:50 +0100
- To: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, "ext Priestley, Mark, VF-Group" <Mark.Priestley@vodafone.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 3/17/09, Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com> wrote: > 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 ? > I think that should be fine. > 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 > > > > > -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 20:48:34 UTC