On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjon<[email protected]> 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'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.
I don't understand. In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs
produced by different implementations?
Know which section you're in to highlight a given button:
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 contrived.
It's easy to come up with a bunch of similar cases. If you get one
implementation with more market-share than the others, then they'll
have to copy its behaviour, and we'll then have to specify it.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
![http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg"](http://magic-widget-host.local/dahut.svg"){kind=link}