Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's baaaack!

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Robin Berjon<> wrote:
> 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.

And here is where the fun starts. How do we reconcile the above
without a new scheme?

> 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.


Marcos Caceres

Received on Friday, 4 September 2009 15:41:19 UTC