On 2008-06-17 16:14:20 +1000, Marcos Caceres wrote: > Irrespective of encoding issues, the premise remains that the HTTP > protocol is not suitable for widgets and hence we need "widgets://"
You mean that the http URI scheme is not suitable for widgets. > scheme. We need the TAG to help us explore using HTTP to meet our > requirements for widgets. If together we can either prove HTTP usable > or unsuitable for widgets, then we can either discard or adopt > "widget://". Regardless, we need the TAG's support resolving this > issue sooner than later. > > -- > Marcos Caceres > http://datadriven.com.au > http://standardssuck.org > > -- Thomas Roessler, W3C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
