On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon<ro...@berjon.com> wrote: > On May 23, 2009, at 19:21 , Mark Baker wrote: >> >> Right. That's the same point Arve made. I don't see a problem with >> it. Sure, a widget will be able to discover an implementation detail >> of its widget container - the base URI - but it's still up to the >> container to permit or deny access to other resources from that widget >> when asked to dereference it, whether the widget discovered the URI >> via a mechanism such as the one you describe, or even if it simply >> guessed it. > > Calling it an implementation detail doesn't make it one. Say I have a script > in which I need to identify resources that I'm currently using from within > the widget. Since I don't want to have to care how the designers linked them > in, I'll use their absolute URIs to compare them. If implementation A > returns "http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg", and implementation B > "file:///special-widget-mount/dahut.svg", and C gives me "made-up:/dahut.svg > we don't exactly have interoperability.
I don't understand. In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs produced by different implementations? Mark.