On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Marcos Caceres <[email protected]> wrote: > I should have made myself more clear. I meant that the widget would behave > as if it had been dragged from the hard-drive with respect to access to HTTP > resources via inline content. The model I am proposing is dependent on the > widget:// URI scheme and the assumption that widget:// acts a mounted drive > for the widget. Access to the file system would be forbidden. No way was I > intending to imply otherwise.
It might be more productive to spec what you actually mean instead of using an analogy to a part of the browser security model with poor interoperability. Adam
