- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 18:21:17 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com>, marcosc@opera.com, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon<robin@berjon.com> 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. I don't understand. In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs produced by different implementations? Mark.
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 22:22:04 UTC