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 resources from that widget when asked to dereference it, whether the widget discovered the URI via a mechanism such as the one you describe, or even if it simply guessed it.
Calling it an implementation detail doesn't make it one. Say I have a script in which I need to identify resources that I'm currently using from within the widget. Since I don't want to have to care how the designers linked them in, I'll use their absolute URIs to compare them. If implementation A returns "http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg ", and implementation B "file:///special-widget-mount/dahut.svg", and C gives me "made-up:/dahut.svg we don't exactly have interoperability.
This gets more interesting once you bring the localisation mechanism from P+C into play, whereby the Zip relative path and the relative URI are different when you have multilingual content.
-- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
