Re: [Wpack] package: URL scheme

[Mallory Knodel <[e-mail]>]

On 6/11/20 8:01 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:

> I have a bunch of concerns about this approach, but let's start with a fairly major one:
>
> This buries the authority.  If your authority is truly publisher.example, then that should be the authority component.  If you regard the rest as a split between the remainder of the identity of the resource itself and some secondary information about how that resource might be obtained, then you might have something closer to how you might want to structure a URI.

Agree that the user needs an indication of publisher, and that hiding 
the URL is unhelpful to the user. Simplification sounds like the right 
thing to do, because too much information can have the same effect as none.

-Mallory

> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020, at 08:00, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
>
> The URLs are obviously gross, so
> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/pull/560 suggests that browsers
> avoid showing them to users in most cases.
>
> We could potentially simplify things if packages named things with just
> paths instead of full URIs. We'd then name things based on the bundle's
> origin. However, this loses archiving use cases.
>
> This is all further discussed in the following documents and issues,
> but you shouldn't feel responsible to read everything here:
>
> *
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BYQEi8xkXDAg9lxm3PaoMzEutuQAZi1r8Y0pLaFJQoo/edit#
> *
> https://chromium-review..googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2226248/7#message-0a3efda5aff84770a1729422a5b26aeca3ee4e80 <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/2226248/7#message-0a3efda5aff84770a1729422a5b26aeca3ee4e80>
> * https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/issues/583
> *
> https://github.com/WICG/webpackage/blob/master/explainers/navigation-to-unsigned-bundles.md#urls-for-bundle-components
> * https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2019Nov/0000.html

-- 
Mallory Knodel
CTO, Center for Democracy and Technology
gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780