W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2013

Re: CFC, app: URI scheme

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 21:28:14 +0000
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: uri@w3.org
Message-ID: <3C8C301EA6134202873C9A25F43EEB83@marcosc.com>

On Friday, November 1, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> Marcos - I'm pretty sure we had this, or a very similar conversation
> back in the widget: or blob:(IIRC) scheme proposals. My position is
> that if it looks like http and works like http, that you should go out
> of your way to make it http (for all those "already deployed"
> reasons).
> It seems to me that the innovation in app: is the use of UUID in the
> authority component. I agree that this is valuable in some contexts,
> but wonder why that can't be used with a DNS name. So instead of;
> app://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66/index.html
> why not this?
> http://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66.localhost/index.html
That would have always been my preference too (I even argued the same thing for a long long time)! But it would mean packing a HTTP server into the runtime - instead of the fairly dumb thing that app:// is. Everyone that I’ve ever worked with on these kinds of engines hasn’t wanted to do that (or has found the whole thing problematic because it meant setting it a the system level, etc.). So yeah - it’s totally the right solution, imo also, but it’s just hasn’t happened at the implementation level :( Thus, I’m here again pushing for app:// (which is just widget: in disguise).   
Marcos Caceres
Received on Friday, 1 November 2013 21:28:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:16 UTC