On Friday, September 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Mark Baker wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Marcos Caceres
> <marcosscace...@gmail.com (mailto:marcosscace...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> Well, this is progress, but it seems the only difference now between
> widget: and http: is the authority. And if that's the case, then
> instead of (from your example);
>  
> widget://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66/index.html
>  
> why not go with this?
>  
> http://c13c6f30-ce25-11e0-9572-0800200c9a66.localhost/index.html
That might totally work:) The spec just needs to sandbox the request so apps 
don't request resources from each other (i.e., I just hope it's not hard to 
implement a kind of restricted-local-http server that widget:// tries to be… 
hopefully you get what I mean here: requests/response is instance specific, 
except where this could be used with postMessage… Also, I was worried about 
muddying-up the two "protocols", even if they are both http.

Another minor nit is that some runtimes already implement widget:// … but then 
again, they also implement http, so it might all be ok. Might have a crack at 
trying to implement this on Android.  




Reply via email to