- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:33:32 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote: > Right. That's the same point Arve made. I don't see a problem with > it. Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail > of its widget container - the base URI - but it's still up to the > container to permit or deny access to other resources from that widget > when asked to dereference it, whether the widget discovered the URI > via a mechanism such as the one you describe, or even if it simply > guessed it. Calling it an implementation detail doesn't make it one. Say I have a script in which I need to identify resources that I'm currently using from within the widget. Since I don't want to have to care how the designers linked them in, I'll use their absolute URIs to compare them. If implementation A returns "http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg ", and implementation B "file:///special-widget-mount/dahut.svg", and C gives me "made-up:/dahut.svg we don't exactly have interoperability. This gets more interesting once you bring the localisation mechanism from P+C into play, whereby the Zip relative path and the relative URI are different when you have multilingual content. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 14:34:07 UTC