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

RE: ZIP-based packages and URI references within them, [widgets, uriBasedPackageAccess-61]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 14:01:14 -0600
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com>, Richard Cohn <rcohn@adobe.com>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@adobe.com>, "Henry.Story@Sun.COM" <Henry.Story@sun.com>, Michael Stahl <Michael.Stahl@sun.com>, "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Svante Schubert <Svante.Schubert@sun.com>, "eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org" <eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Carl Cargill <cargill@adobe.com>, Stephen Zilles <szilles@adobe.com>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1227643274.6953.90.camel@pav.lan>

On Sat, 2008-11-22 at 20:54 -0800, Larry Masinter wrote:
> Resolving the general topic of ZIP-based packages and URI references within them
>  on the webapp mailing  list doesn't seem practical, because those 
>  who need to review the package/URI issue are likely not interested
>  in wading through the mass of other email
>  on other unrelated topics within WebAPP WG.

In the recent join TAG/WebApps ftf session, I learned that
a lot of that other stuff is not so unrelated.

(Marcos's slides are attached to those minutes thru
a rather indirect route, so here's a more direct link:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/att-0299/TPAC_URISchemes.pdf )

Software installation security policy requirements seem to dominate,
for the purpose of WebApp widgets. I was surprised to learn that 
URIs using the scheme they have in mind aren't actually written down in
absolute form; they're sort of conjured up at run-time, and it
can lead to security/privacy problems if anybody else learns
about them. Are those requirements relevant to ebook scenarios?

Oh... perhaps they are... I see earlier in this thread:
"I seem to recall that we used some sort of scheme during the processing
of a Mars document but didn't persist it in the file."

The scope of these names wasn't entirely clear to me in the
ftf session; I heard some conflicting information.
I gather the WebAPP WG continues to discuss their requirements.

> I don't understand why setting up a separate mail list/archive/issue
> list on the 
> specific topic is a lengthy process, it mainly requires the will to
> take the 
> need for coherence seriously.

Setting up an archived mailing list isn't a lengthy process. Any W3C
staff contact can fill in the relevant form and the systems guys
usually turn them around within the day, if not within the week.
The tricky bit is setting and managing expectations,
figuring out the requirements, that sort of thing.

So I could set up a mailing list around the uriBasedPackageAccess-61
TAG issue

But I don't know that I could justify the time to drive the discussion,
and last time I set up a mailing list for the community to talk about
packaging, it didn't amount to much.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
gpg D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541  0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 20:01:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:25 UTC