This seems very related to how prefixes/terms are expanded to IRIs in
JSON-LD - see http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iris
The JSON-LD approach is more like registering new "local" protocols,
as they look like URIs.
If we tried that out, then:
would mean that
would resolve to fred/hello.txt wit
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> Have you looked at just reusing JAR for this (given that you support it in
> some form already)? I wonder how well it works. Off the top of my head I
> see at least two issues:
>
JARs are just ZIPs with Java metadata. We don't need metadata,
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 20:42 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The only things that implementations can do that JS can't is:
>> * Implement new protocols. I definitely agree that we should specify a
>> jar: or archive: protocol, but that's orthogonal to whet
* Robin Berjon wrote:
>I wonder if we couldn't have a mechanism that would not require a
>separate URI scheme. Just throwing this against the wall, might be daft:
>
>We add a new relationship: bundle (archive is taken, bikeshed
>later). The href points to the archive, and there can be as many as
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On 06/05/2013 20:42 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> The only things that implementations can do that JS can't is:
>> * Implement new protocols. I definitely agree that we should specify a
>> jar: or archive: protocol, but that's orthogonal to whet
Top-posting FTW!
Smells a bit like declarative navigation controller to me. (No, I don't
say that like it's a bad thing, actually).
cheers
On Tue, 07 May 2013 16:29:49 +0200, Robin Berjon wrote:
On 06/05/2013 20:42 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
The only things that implementations can do that J
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> Robin seems to address that in the parts of his mail you didn't quote.
My bad :-(
Have to say it does seem quite elegant. And has great fallback (if
implemented on the server).
--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
* Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
>> This isn't very different from JAR but it does have the property of more
>> easily enabling a transition. To give an example, say that the page at
>> http://berjon.com/ contains:
>>
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>
>
>Y
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> This isn't very different from JAR but it does have the property of more
> easily enabling a transition. To give an example, say that the page at
> http://berjon.com/ contains:
>
>
>
> and
>
>
You need a new URL scheme here. Otherwis
On 06/05/2013 20:42 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
The only things that implementations can do that JS can't is:
* Implement new protocols. I definitely agree that we should specify a
jar: or archive: protocol, but that's orthogonal to whether we need an
API.
Have you looked at just reusing JAR for thi
10 matches
Mail list logo