W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: [File API] events vs callbacks

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 10:55:01 +0200
To: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uywi1zh064w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:21:48 +0200, Nikunj R. Mehta <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2009, at 4:40 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:57:51 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>  
>> wrote:
>>> xhr.open("GET", myFile.slice(x, y).fileDataURI);
>>> xhr.send();
>>
>> FWIW I'm opposed to abusing XMLHttpRequest in this way and I actually  
>> think that when using the filedata URL scheme some kind of exception  
>> needs to be thrown. Similarly to when you would use mailto or something.
>
> Step 7 in the algorithm for open() [1] says to reject URLs in  
> unsupported schemes. Is there a way to find out supported schemes? The  
> spec says nothing normative about schemes other than HTTP (what about  
> HTTPS). Therefore, is it fair to assume that filedata uris are not  
> supported in XHR and that any browser doing otherwise is doing a favor?

There's no way to find out supported schemes. The draft does not mention the HTTP scheme at the moment. It mentions the HTTP protocol (which includes HTTPS). I'm not sure what you mean by "doing a favor". Currently the behavior of other schemes is undefined. I should probably tighten up the language a little bit around that.


> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/XMLHttpRequest/#xmlhttprequest


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 19 August 2009 08:55:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT