W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > May 2008

Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:29:27 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2prr5s0g8.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ "Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol)" <skw@hp.com> was heard to say:
|> | URI being opaque at the client, what is the client side trigger for that behaviour?
|> The media type returned by .../blink-01.zip?
| I'm sure that's part of the story... but *if* one is respecting
| opacity one has no basis on which to intuit that there is any
| relation between the resources referenced by
| http://example.com/widgets/2007/blink-01.zip and by
| http://example.com/widgets/2007/blink-01.zip/contents/chrome/js/blink.js.

Indeed. But your notion of automagically establishing a cache would
provide a hook, I think.

| That's a bit more complicated to tell and probably has some rough
| edges - but it does 'pivot' on a media-type definition rather than a
| URI scheme.

Right. And it doesn't address the concern about packages sent via SMS
and other non-http transports.

I'm not convinced that a new scheme is the right answer (nor am I
certain it isn't), but my sympathies lie with Larry, I think. If it
has to be a new URI scheme, it'd be nice to find a general solution to
the packaging issues (zip:, jar:, widget:, etc.) rather than a
completely special case for widgets. And fixing file: would be good
too, though I'm not sure I see the will to do that.

                                        Be seeing you,

Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | The years teach us much which the days
http://nwalsh.com/            | never knew.-- Emerson

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2008 13:30:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:22 UTC