On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Mark Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > file:, despite the name, doesn't have to be mapped to the file system. > Its scope could be limited in exactly the same way you've limited > widget: there. Similarly, ftp or http - even part of the space - > *could* be mapped to the file system. So the issue you're worried > about has little to do with the URI scheme.
That's absolutely true. It could be that, for instance, we recommend "file://widgetEngine/widget.wgt/path/to/file" or just "file:///widget.wgt/path/to/file". But we are still stuck on the fact that file: hasn't been formally standardized anywhere. Does that matter? -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au