- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:58:05 +0200
- To: mozer <xmlizer@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Hi Moz, On Jun 19, 2009, at 10:02 , mozer wrote: > 1) In the same spirit as WARP, it would be interesting to make HTML5 > reference, an informative one After careful consideration I believe that you are right — there is no direct normative dependency. It is now informative. > 2) Probably the link between authority and opaque-autorithy should > be clearer I am not sure what you mean exactly. If there is an authority component, it is considered to be opaque (i.e. devoid of semantics). I went through every occurrence of "authority" in the draft but am not sure what I would change to satisfy this comment. > 3) Update reference to Working Draft 28 May 2009 for Widgets-PC Done (to CR). > 4) s/RFC5234/RFC 5234/ Done. > I'm not sure to fully understand this requirement > > [[ > Must be independent of any file system > Addressing based on this scheme must only map onto Zip relative paths > and remain independent of any file system on which the widget may be > stored. > ]] > > Does it mean that, it is case insensitive for example ? No, it does not mean that it uses the lowest common denominator of all file systems (that wouldn't leave us with much :) but that it isn't constrained by the FS it's running on and its conventions (e.g. you won't get foo\bar on Windows and foo/bar everywhere else). If it so happens that an implementation of P+C unpacks (as an internal detail) the content of the widgets to a specific on-disk directory, the widget URIs must still work the same way (and if that directory is on a case- insensitive FS, the implementation is in trouble — but that's not our problem). -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 20:58:41 UTC