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

Re: Updates to File API

From: David Levin <levin@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:39:41 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim416iNOWxYBapj0TnsO2ASCXsJha49qyhx3gy5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
> > On 6/22/10 8:44 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> > > I think it makes more sense for the URL to be opaque and let user
> > > agents figure
> > > out the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks.
> > I think it may be important to define:
> >
> > * Format.  I agree that this could be something simple, but it should be
> > defined.  By opaque, do you mean undefined?
> > * Behavior with GET.  For this, I propose using a subset of HTTP/1.1
> > responses.
> I think we agree. I actually meant well-defined but opaque to JavaScript
> consumers. In other words script in a web page can't deduce any meaningful
> information from the string. If we're aiming for that property then it
> makes sense that the entire scheme be defined (something like
> filedata:00000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000).

I agree with you Adrian that it makes sense to let the user agent figure out
the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks.

A logical step from that premise is that the choice/format of the namespace
specific string should be left up to the UA as embedding information in
there may be the optimal way for some UA's of implementing said checks, and
it sounds like other UAs may not want to do that.

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 03:40:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:53:44 UTC