It is important I think that the package itself have an HTTP URI.
Yes, there will be times when you don't retrieve it in the normal
course of business, and times when it is aggressively cached (what we
call installation), but it should have an HTTP URI for all the normal
reasons.
So that suggests that the HTTP URI for the package, which names it, be
the reference point for things inside the package, to identify them.
Why not adopt the convention that one just continues with a slash?
http://example.com/widgets/2007/blink-01.zip/contents/chrome/js/blink.js
This would mean the server would have to reply to it either with a
response indicating "You have asked for part of a package X, go get
the package" or it could say You have asked for part of a package X,
here is what you asked for" and extract it.
Tim
On 2008-05 -23, at 07:27, Williams, Stuart (HP Labs, Bristol) wrote:
I was thinking that a media type/content type for .zip (like) files
with a definitions such that fragIds can be used to refer to the
items within the file - admittedly doesn't nest to well items within
a zipped item in a zip file. Haven't checked to see if such a media
type exists or has been attempted in the past, but it seems to me
more appropriate than a URI scheme.
BR
Stuart
--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Dan Brickley
Sent: 23 May 2008 12:08
To: Marcos Caceres
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WAF WG (public); Jon Ferraiolo
Subject: Re: [widgets] Widgets URI scheme
Marcos Caceres wrote:
Dear TAG,
The WAF working group is seeking advice on the creation of a Widget
URI scheme.
If you really can't live with http: URIs, have you considered
using the
tag: URI scheme, see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4151.html
cheers,
Dan
