Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-10 Thread Stian Soiland-Reyes
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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Glenn Maynard
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,

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread David Sheets
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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* 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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Jonas Sicking
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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Charles McCathie Nevile
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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
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/

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* 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

Re: jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Anne van Kesteren
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

jar protocol (was: ZIP archive API?)

2013-05-07 Thread Robin Berjon
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