On 2008-05-23 06:17:36 -0700, Jon Ferraiolo wrote: > I'm not trying to defend 'zip:' or disparage 'widget:' or any other > alternative, but I don't understand what you are saying. What is the > difference between the original content of the ZIP using URL references > that say 'widget:/images/image1.jpg' versus 'zip:/images/image1.jpg'?
> Is your complaint against including ZIP-package-relative URLs in > the original content (whether it is 'widget:' or 'zip:'), or is > your complaint against using a 'zip:' protocol in the original > content instead of a 'widget:' protocol? As far as authoring is concerned, I think they're (almost) equally bad. Quite generally, it would appear that using a URI scheme that's specific to the packaging format basically leads to a layering violation -- so far, the widget's DOM layer doesn't need to have a clue whether it was packaged with zip (as the current spec says), not packaged at all (as in, installed in a widget engine that just unpacks things into the file system), or whatever else. -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
