Marcos, All,
I agree the main follow-up is that we need to do some additional
work, particularly regarding fleshing out related requirements.
The minutes indicate there are some requirements that aren't
explicitly captured in the October 20 version of R6:
Hi Mark,
Please see [1] for TAG discussion about WebApps proposal of widget URI
scheme. From what I got from the discussion, the TAG seems to agree
that we likely do need our own URI scheme. We just need to flesh out
our technical argument a little more. We are also going to try to
coordinate
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Mark,
Please see [1] for TAG discussion about WebApps proposal of widget URI
scheme. From what I got from the discussion, the TAG seems to agree
that we likely do need our own URI scheme.
Hmm, have you read the
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, In one of my previous emails I said that this was a potential
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
Hi,
It seems to me that Requirement 6 should be split into two requirements:
A. A conforming specification MUST specify or recommend an addressing scheme to
address the individual resources within the widget resource at runtime.
B. A conforming specification MUST specify or recommend an
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I will add Any hierarchical URI scheme as the proposed solution
into the spec.
I will say that, personally, I feel it is irresponsible for the
WebApps WG to not recommend a complete and a secure solution for this
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Marcos Caceres
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok. I will add Any hierarchical URI scheme as the proposed solution
into the spec.
I will say that, personally, I feel it is irresponsible for the
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those
requirements. So why not, for the sake of argument, file:?
Yes, file: might be ok. But where is the spec that defines file:? I
can't find it.
Good
Hi Mark,
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:00 AM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Marcos Caceres [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Any hierarchical URI scheme would seem to be able to meet those
requirements. So why not, for the sake of argument, file:?
Yes, file:
Marcos - IIRC, there was little or no support for a widget URI scheme
in the discussion on www-tag. Why are you continuing to move ahead
with it?
Note that you'll still have to get this past IANA who maintains the
registry. IANA uses a process specified in RFC 4395 which says;
The use and
Hi Mark,
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marcos - IIRC, there was little or no support for a widget URI scheme
in the discussion on www-tag. Why are you continuing to move ahead
with it?
Sorry Mark, I'm afraid that your recollection on this issue is
Hi All,
I think, for V1, that we should drop the authority part of the widget
URI scheme and leave it as an implementation detail (but add a note
saying that we might add a scheme in V2). I propose this because we
don't currently have an API or security/interaction model for
cross-widget
13 matches
Mail list logo
