W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > November 2019

Re: URLs for resources within unsigned packages: a new scheme?

From: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 10:50:32 +0000
Message-ID: <5DC3F6F8.3040801@ninebynine.org>
To: uri@w3.org
CC: Stian Soiland-Reyes <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk>
There's been some discussion of a similar idea a little while ago.  There's an 
(expired) ID at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-soilandreyes-arcp/.

And there's some code: https://arcp.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

And a paper: http://s11.no/2018/arcp.html

There's a small amount of discussion about here 
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/XZHLGuuR6JSw4XoYmTRK6Fli8A0], 
and some related discussion here 
[https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uri-review/B2OYkX7_BTs4EBtH0A8Y_4hPkdQ]

#g
--


On 06/11/2019 23:20, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> Hi URI experts,
>
> As you may have seen, we're working on a way to package web resources at
> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage. One of the use cases is to let users save a
> web page, site, or collection of sites to a single local file and share it to
> their peers without an internet connection. If those sites use the browser's
> local storage systems, I think each site should get its own partition. Since the
> user generated the package, the sites within it aren't signed, so that partition
> can't be the same one used by the online version of the site. So, what origin
> does an unsigned resource within a package get?
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BYQEi8xkXDAg9lxm3PaoMzEutuQAZi1r8Y0pLaFJQoo/edit discusses
> the problem in some detail, and suggests that the origin should include both the
> full absolute URI of the package itself and the claimed origin of the
> subresource. ("Claimed" because it's not signed.) To get that to happen within
> browsers, I think that means we need to define a new scheme for URLs that
> address a subresource within a package. The document suggests a couple ways to
> define that scheme.
>
> I'd appreciate if the experts on this list would think about the problem a bit
> and suggest how best to solve it.
>
> I've been iterating within the linked Google Doc, but if anyone would be more
> comfortable iterating on GitHub, I can translate it to markdown and check it in.
>
> Thanks a bunch,
> Jeffrey
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2019 10:50:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:58 UTC