- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 17:53:51 +0200
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > > The widget element's id attribute says "An IRI attribute that denotes an > identifier for the widget." and is silent on the value of the IRI's scheme. > > What, if anything, do vendors recommend for the scheme? I guess using a HTTP URI, with no versioning. Best if it points where information about the widget can be gotten at. Like: http://datadriven.com.au/awesome-app/ > What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the widget: URI scheme > [ignoring the process-related issues that currently, the widget URI scheme > spec is still a LCWD]? This is not the intention of the Widget URI scheme. This should be strongly discouraged. The disadvantage is that the widget uri scheme does not identify the widget itself. And humans can't go looking up a widget://. Alway use a http uri. Should we make an Authoring note in P&C about this? -- Marcos Caceres Opera Software ASA, http://www.opera.com/ http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Saturday, 2 October 2010 15:54:40 UTC