On 1 Nov 2011, at 10:21, Jean-Noël Colin wrote: > Returning cookies from remote side is one thing, another thing is to send > available cookies to that remote side as well.
Given the origin issue (see other email) I'm not sure either is a good idea :( > > About inserting websites into widgets, it also sounds to me like a bad idea. > The way I see it is that the widget would provide the UI and possibly some > logic, while the remote side would act as a backend. Do you share this view? I think thats the basic model most people think of. > > Is there anything in the widgets specs that forbids inserting websites into > widgets (basically having a widget with just an iframe with src parameter > pointing to a remote site) No, not really. However a widget isn't expected to navigate, so if you pull in a site that contains links its unlikely to work, especially on mobile widget runtimes. I think for Wookie the problem is mainly if you try to proxify it first, as it will then have the wrong origin. But just pulling in a page as an iframe should be OK, and can be a reasonable quick hack to get a widget created by wrapping an existing "widget-like" web application. > > Cheers > > -- > Jean-Noël > > > On 29 Oct 2011, at 11:12, Scott Wilson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 29 Oct 2011, at 10:10, Ross Gardler wrote: >> >>> Whilst I agree about proxy not being used to insert websites into widgets, >>> it is sometimes necessary to send and receive cookies, e.g. basic >>> authentication. For me this is the important pay of this query. >> >> +1 on returning complete headers including cookies >> >>> >>> Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity. >>> On Oct 29, 2011 9:38 AM, "Scott Wilson" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>
