Hi Marcos,
Re 99% fulfillment of the needs:
As stated in my original email, one of the targets is that access is not an
obstacle for DAP.
It is currently undefined how the related access control will be done and we
would probably want to avoid the situation that access is deprecated once DAP
Hi Marcos,
Thanks for your comments.
It seems we are aligned.
UAs will just have to deal with that internally
I assume there could be an easy solution to the normalization:
The normalization / mandating some equivalence-determining algorithm (from
RFC3987) could go into PC.
Then maybe I18N
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Mark Bakerdist...@acm.org wrote:
I don't understand. In what scenario would a script be comparing URIs
produced by different implementations?
implementations tend to be stupid and parse things by hand.
if you don't believe this, all you have to do is look at
On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com 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
September 15 is the deadline for comments on the August 18 Last Call
Working Draft of the APIs and Events spec:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-widgets-apis-20090818/
The comment tracking document for this LCWD is:
http://www.w3.org/2006/02/lc-comments-tracker/42538/WD-widgets-
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2009, at 00:21 , Mark Baker wrote:
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Robin Berjonro...@berjon.com 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
Marcin Hanclik wrote:
Hi Marcos,
Thanks for your comments.
It seems we are aligned.
UAs will just have to deal with that internally
I assume there could be an easy solution to the normalization:
The normalization / mandating some equivalence-determining algorithm (from RFC3987)
could go
