- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:31:04 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Sep 23, 2011, at 18:26 , Mark Baker wrote: > Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between > widget: and http: is the authority. And if that's the case, then > instead of (from your example); > > widget://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66/index.html > > why not go with this? > > http://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66.localhost/index.html Well, the advantage of a scheme is that it's solidly in the realm of the implementation to decide how to handle it. We've actually been bouncing ideas like the above around for a while (albeit with things like .app rather than .localhost) and it's a bit scary. It means that in some cases you're doing DNS resolution differently than the way in which you normally do it (which might just be relying on the system). It means surprising results if you add c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66.app to your hosts file and see it do one thing in the browser and another in a widget. There are however many useful benefits in tying a packaged web application (using whatever packaging) to an origin, not the least of which is same-origin policy and overall just being a regular web app (that may happen to have been loaded differently). Overall I'd rather wait for the outcome from the Offline Web Apps workshop to have a definitive opinion on which approach is best. Be sure to be there! http://www.w3.org/2011/web-apps-ws/ -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Monday, 26 September 2011 14:31:31 UTC