On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Robin Berjon<[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
The regex could just as easily have been written to exclude the authority component of the URI. Do you have a better example? Mark.
