W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > June 2010

RE: Updates to File API

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:43:16 +0000
To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB2F1F21C7@TK5EX14MBXC132.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:27 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
> > Indeed, the URL scheme seems to be more sort of implementation details.
> > Different browser vendors can choose the appropriate scheme, like Mozilla
> > ships with moz-filedata. How do you think?
> 
> Actually, I'm against leaving it totally up to implementations.  Sure,
> the spec. could simply state how the URL behaves without mentioning
> format much, but we identified in the past [1] that it was wise to
> specify things reliably, so that developers didn't rely on arbitrary
> behavior in one implementation and expect something similar in another.
> It's precisely that genre of underspecified behavior that got us in
> trouble before ;-)
> 
> -- A*
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0743.html

Do you think the URL scheme should be specified for each use of Blob or more broadly? For example, Blob is used in the File Reader API but also possibly in the Capture API in a different way. It might be useful to be able to use a different scheme for these different purposes to help the user agent route requests to the appropriate handler.

Adrian.
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 13:45:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:14:10 GMT