[whatwg] Application deployment
giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl
Tue Jul 29 02:52:28 PDT 2008
Archive: is not generic enough but perhaps you could bend the URL notation
to embrace something like inside:. I still would not recommend it but it
would not make me that sore.
How about <inside:local/path.html?container=http://www.site.com/app.jar>?
The user agent would be required to append a query string to local
hyperlinks and that parameter would be reserved (or rename it to
Of course this URL scheme would never leak to HTTP.
OTOH, you can simulate several entry points by having all supported entry
points on the start page (à la Microsoft Access) and have the user navigate
to what she needs. I do not think this would be prohibitive from the
customers point of view. And I am sure there is no need to publish each
From: rocallahan at gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:55 AM
To: Kristof Zelechovski
Cc: Adrian Sutton; Adam Barth; whatwg at whatwg.org; Russell Leggett; Philipp
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Application deployment
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>
My complaint was about how the jar URL scheme wannabe conceptually differs
from the schemes we already officially have, not about how ugly it is to
have two consecutive colons. It is ugly but it does not matter. What
matters is that a scheme is being promoted that is specific to one content
type, just as the APPLET element is discouraged for the same reason.
Suppose it was called "archive:" instead of "jar:" and the spec was made
open-ended so that other archive types other than ZIP files were permitted.
Would your objection still apply?
Anyway, it is not obvious at all that linking inside a packaged HTML
application should be supported.
Multiple entry points to a single application are common.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the whatwg