Re: URI schemes - is widget: OK, but xri: not?

http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-reqs/#r6.-addressing

On Aug 7, 2008, at 5:28 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> packaging
> multiple representations into a single archive cannot rely on the
> ability to rewrite references within the content of individual
> parts because the individual parts may be cryptographically
> signed before the package is created.

There's a misconception here.

A widget is a representation of an application existing on some system
with no correlation to other resources.
In a sense, a widget is more similar to for instance a Debian package
than to a web page.
Web technologies can be used to author these applications.

There is no http or other network resource to which the resources in a
widget correspond.

Creating a widget does not involve "packaging a web page as a widget"
it involves *writing* a widget.

> If a part is
> created without its own URI, the cid scheme is the recommended
> choice for minting new URIs within a package.

webapps have looked at cid
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2111.txt>
Content-ID and Message-ID Uniform Resource Locators

We have found cid: unsuitable for the specification because it's based
on single mime resources and the widgets specification is based on
zip.

Received on Wednesday, 27 August 2008 11:03:27 UTC