- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:26:19 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On May 22, 2009, at 20:21 , Mark Baker wrote: > Ah, right, I didn't realize it was related to a discussion Marcos and > I had last year; > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/thread.html#msg50 > > I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of > relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was > dropped about that time. Has some new requirement emerged since then > that makes relative references an undesirable option? Reading that thread I don't see a consensus emerging one way or another, and a lot of options appear to be considered that seem to be out of scope (or too close to the metal) for this specification. I see some arguments around using file: that could be used, but none seem to explain how it could be without entirely precluding other file: access (which could potentially be needed) or minting special names (e.g. a special file host), which strikes me as a bad idea. Would you care to outline what specifically you had in mind? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:26:55 UTC