- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 14:43:07 +0200
- To: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Cc: marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps@w3.org
Hi all,
sorry I didn't jump in earlier, I was taken with entirely different
considerations.
François is entirely right in his evaluation of the way in which
widget URIs work, which is to say that in a document at the root of
the widget you can't treat <a href='/foo'> and <a href='foo'> any
different. Or at least, not without deciding that we have our own
rules for relative URI reference absolutisation, which I fervently
hope we don't.
I think that there are two ways to resolve this comment:
- drop the distinction that's in the spec between /foo and foo in
config.xml
- make it very clear that that distinction exists only in config.xml
(which uses paths, not URIs)
Since I don't personally see a strong use case for the distinction,
I'm happy either way. Technically I have a small preference for the
first option, process-wise I prefer the clarification.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 12:43:43 UTC