On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
The regex could just as easily have been written to exclude the
authority component of the URI. Do you have a better example?
>>>
>>> It could have, but it wasn't — interoperability isn't what happens when
>>> people write to a W3C wo
On Sep 9, 2009, at 19:01 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 17:18 , Mark Baker wrote:
function getSection () {
return location.href.replace(/^http:\/\/magic.local\/([^\/]+).*/,
"$1").toLowerCase();
}
The regex could just as easily ha
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 17:18 , Mark Baker wrote:
>>>
>>> function getSection () {
>>> return location.href.replace(/^http:\/\/magic.local\/([^\/]+).*/,
>>> "$1").toLowerCase();
>>> }
>>>
>>> I won't say that it's necessarily the best-written code,
On Sep 8, 2009, at 17:18 , Mark Baker wrote:
function getSection () {
return location.href.replace(/^http:\/\/magic.local\/([^\/]+).*/,
"$1").toLowerCase();
}
I won't say that it's necessarily the best-written code, but it's
not daft
enough to be shrugged off and it's not particularly contriv
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon 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.
On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon 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 w
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Mark Baker wrote:
> I don't understand. In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs
> produced by different implementations?
implementations tend to be stupid and parse things by hand.
if you don't believe this, all you have to do is look at the html5
discus
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon 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
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Robin Berjon 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'
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Jean-Claude
Dufourd wrote:
> Marcos, Mark, all,
>
> I am picking up the discussion where Cyril left it some months ago. I have
> read this thread, the Oct 08 one, the proposed URI scheme spec, even skimmed
> through the wam minutes. I still am leaning towards Mark's
On May 27, 2009, at 10:15 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and
that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme
of their own,
Jean-Claude,
On May 26, 2009, at 17:38 , Jean-Claude Dufourd wrote:
0- the author needs a way to point to resources within the widget
package
Correct.
1- the "URI scheme will never be used by the author" (written by
Marcos), the author will use relative URIs for resources within the
widg
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:26:19 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
Reading that thread I don't see a consensus emerging one way or another,
and a lot of options appear to be considered that seem to be out of
scope (or too close to the metal) for this specification. I see some
arguments around using f
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 re
On May 22, 2009, at 20:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
Ah, right, I didn't realize it was related to a discussion Marcos and
I had last year;
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/thread.html#msg50
I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
relative refe
Hi Larry,
On May 22, 2009, at 17:29 , Larry Masinter wrote:
If the widget: scheme is intended for inter-package references
then there are security issues with that. If not, then why the UUID?
Inter-widget communication is a use case that can be tackled later —
this is left as an open door. T
Hi Mark,
On May 22, 2009, at 15:25 , Mark Baker wrote:
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that "Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget" came from? Can you point to a
precedent for such a restriction in any other protocol? I remember
TimBL writing something to the effect o
Hi Larry,
On May 29, 2009, at 02:51 , Larry Masinter wrote:
I'd suggest looking harder at "thismessage", though,
before inventing a new URI scheme for "widget",
especially since it will (should) not appear outside
of the internal operational context.
Reusing existing technology has the advantag
ay 26, 2009 8:39 AM
To: public-webapps
Cc: public-pkg-uri-scheme
Subject: Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's bck!
Marcos, Mark, all,
I am picking up the discussion where Cyril left it some months ago. I
have read this thread, the Oct 08 one, the proposed URI scheme spec,
even skimmed
On 27 May 2009, at 11:34, timeless wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
Just to be clear... The expectation you're talking about is that:
1. upon dereferencing, the query part is ignored
I'm not specifically making this request, I believe in our unminuted
discuss
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Just to be clear... The expectation you're talking about is that:
>
> 1. upon dereferencing, the query part is ignored
I'm not specifically making this request, I believe in our unminuted
discussion we talked about the potential to allow
On 27 May 2009, at 10:58, timeless wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
2. Where does the requirement for query strings suddenly come
from? I can't
find it in the current editor's draft, and (beyond a side
discussion with
timeless) don't recall conversation abou
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 2. Where does the requirement for query strings suddenly come from? I can't
> find it in the current editor's draft, and (beyond a side discussion with
> timeless) don't recall conversation about it.
Basically web apps expect that window
Arve Bersvendsen a écrit :
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and that
UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of their
own, the situation may well arise where they have specified som
On 27 May 2009, at 09:34, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
The main issue here, I think, is one of being proactive on this
front. Given that absolute URIs are required for resolution, and
that UA vendors will, unless specified, have to pick a URI scheme of
their own, the situation may well arise wh
On Tue, 26 May 2009 17:38:48 +0200, Jean-Claude Dufourd
wrote:
2- the browser will have to resolve the relative URI to an absolute URI
because of the DOM spec, hence a possible vulnerability by divulging
private information (e.g. actual name of current user in file: URI
example of Apple
Marcos, Mark, all,
I am picking up the discussion where Cyril left it some months ago. I
have read this thread, the Oct 08 one, the proposed URI scheme spec,
even skimmed through the wam minutes. I still am leaning towards Mark's
position. It seems to me that the URI scheme is not needed, or i
Ouch. :)
I'll start by disputing this requirement:
Must provide an origin URI for widget-contained documents
Many mechanisms in widgets (e.g. cookies, local storage,
XMLHttpRequest) key off the URI or part thereof from which they are
used. Since widgets are for all intents and purposes lo
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:54:17 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
>>
>> It's perfectly good HTML to use a relative reference inside an href,
>> as I'm sure you know. Are you suggesting that widgets have a more
>> restrictive processing model for H
On Sat, 23 May 2009 15:54:17 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
It's perfectly good HTML to use a relative reference inside an href,
as I'm sure you know. Are you suggesting that widgets have a more
restrictive processing model for HTML? I can't find any reference to
such a model in the spec.
I think
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:33:21 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren
>> wrote:
>>> .href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else
>>> would be a bad hack and counter to how it
On Sat, 23 May 2009 06:33:21 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren
> wrote:
>> .href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else
>> would be a bad hack and counter to how it has been designed.
>
> You mean the href attribute as used i
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> .href is always an absolute URL on getting. Making it something else would
> be a bad hack and counter to how it has been designed.
You mean the href attribute as used in the config file? I'm only
talking about @src there AFAICT, as we
On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:40:47 +0200, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> What Microsoft is doing here is fairly irrelevant. Gecko, Webkit and
> Presto all return the absolute URI for my exact example. What you might
> be thinking of is getAttribute, which does return the raw contents of
> the attribut
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
> Ah, right, I didn't realize it was related to a discussion Marcos and
> I had last year;
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/thread.html#msg50
>
> I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>> I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
>> relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was
>> dropped about that time. Has some ne
On Fri, 22 May 2009 21:31:11 +0200, William Edney
wrote:
Arve -
Getting the value of 'src' here using
'document.images[0].getAttribute("src")' should return the relative path.
The Microsoft guys made a big deal out of the fact that IE8 (in IE8
'strict standards' mode) will now properly
Arve -
Getting the value of 'src' here using
'document.images[0].getAttribute("src")' should return the relative
path.
The Microsoft guys made a big deal out of the fact that IE8 (in IE8
'strict standards' mode) will now properly return the relative path
when 'getAttribute()' is used, b
t saying that getting external
review for security mechanisms and assumptions is critical.
Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net
-Original Message-
From: Arve Bersvendsen [mailto:ar...@opera.com]
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Larry Masinter; marc...@opera.com; public-pkg-uri-scheme;
On Fri, 22 May 2009 20:21:56 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
I thought he had (somewhat grudgingly) accepted that way (the use of
relative references) forward, as IIRC, the widget: scheme idea was
dropped about that time. Has some new requirement emerged since then
that makes relative references an u
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:41 AM, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:25:40 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
>
>> I'm curious to learn where the requirement that "Must not allow
>> addressing resources outside a widget" came from? Can you point to a
>> precedent for such a restriction in any
009 9:55 AM
To: Larry Masinter; marc...@opera.com; public-pkg-uri-scheme; public-webapps
Subject: Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme... it's bck!
On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:29:57 +0200, Larry Masinter
wrote:
> If the widget: scheme is intended for inter-package references
> then there are
On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:29:57 +0200, Larry Masinter
wrote:
If the widget: scheme is intended for inter-package references
then there are security issues with that. If not, then why the UUID?
At the time of writing, I do not see them being used for inter-package
references (If my understand
I didn't think "widget" had ever gone away.
The document you pointed at says:
" This document is not a specification as of this time, though it is likely to
become one once consensus has been reached on its fundamental direction. In the
meantime, this document must be considered to sit outside
On Fri, 22 May 2009 15:25:40 +0200, Mark Baker wrote:
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that "Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget" came from? Can you point to a
precedent for such a restriction in any other protocol? I remember
TimBL writing something to the effect o
Marcos,
I'm curious to learn where the requirement that "Must not allow
addressing resources outside a widget" came from? Can you point to a
precedent for such a restriction in any other protocol? I remember
TimBL writing something to the effect of "Anywhere you can use a URI,
you can use any UR
On May 22, 2009, at 11:24, Marcos Caceres wrote:
Just a heads up that the widget URI scheme is back (with a vengence)
in its own spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview.html
Minor nit: When this moves to /TR/, it would be good to zap the 's'
from the short name, since it's ne
Just a heads up that the widget URI scheme is back (with a vengence)
in its own spec:
http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-uri/Overview.html
Kind regards,
Marcos
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
48 matches
Mail list logo
