W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: Updates to File API

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 13:48:07 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinlO7Oi6ShVH-k7GUA5MN1lCbMc33N_WvgzpQR_@mail.gmail.com>
To: arun@mozilla.com
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
>>> 3. The renaming of the property to 'url' also suggests that we should
>>> cease to consider an urn:uuid scheme.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure that one follows from the other. The property's called 'url'
>> because that's what will be familiar to authors, but the magic string that
>> goes inside of it could still be a URN.
>>
>
> I agree that this is probably workable.  (And thanks for commenting on this
> issue :-) )

I agree with Robin. We should definitely not get into defining things
with paths and stuff. I don't have a strong opinion about what the
scheme should be, but we definitely want it to be some sort of unique
identifier plus a prefix.

>> I don't really have a strong preference, but I believe that registering a
>> URN namespace (in the case where we would go for urn:file-data: instead of
>> urn:uuid:) is easier than registering a URI scheme. Since I have a strong
>> feeling that you'll be the one who'll end up doing that work, you might want
>> to take that into consideration ;-)
>
> If we do go with a URN for the .url property, then I'm not sure what benefit
> is gained from registering a new URN namespace (since we could use
> urn:uuid:).  One advantage of using urn:uuid was that the "new technology"
> overhead was low.  At the moment, I'm torn on this, but I'll note that
> implementations are proceeding with what looks like a new scheme (or at
> least what could be a new URN namespace).
>
> Again, implementor feedback is welcome, but the point you make below is what
> I think is true for other implementations (but not necessarily Firefox):

For what it's worth, implementing a new scheme would be easier in
firefox too. However I don't care strongly as either solution is still
implementable.

>> Implementation-wise I can see how some might have the plumbing in place to
>> dispatch depending on URI schemes but not for URNs.
>>
>
> +1 (again, not true of Firefox, where it doesn't really make a difference).

See above.

>> Unless someone has a strong feeling (i.e. not bikeshedding) on this I
>> would suggest closing this issue and leaving it up to the editor.

I agree.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 20:49:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT