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

Re: Updates to File API

From: Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:34:29 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimnvYw5fGiR_tJTLehY0iLjr5npaBNCe0XarJLi@mail.gmail.com>
To: arun@mozilla.com
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
I got what you mean. Thanks for clarifying it.

Do you plan to add the origin encoding into the spec? How about using more
generic scheme name "blobdata:"?

Jian


On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
>
>> Hi, Arun,
>>
>> I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec
>> says
>> that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with
>> moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used
>> to refer to both file data blob and binary data blob, should we consider
>> making the scheme as "blobdata:" for better generalization? In addition,
>> we're thinking it will probably be a good practice to encode the security
>> origin in the blob URL scheme, like blobdata:
>> http://example.com/33c6401f-8779-4ea2-9a9b-1b725d6cd50b. This will make
>> doing the security origin check easier when a page tries to access the
>> blob
>> url that is created in another process, under multi-process architecture.
>>
>>
>
> This is a good suggestion.  I particularly like the idea of encoding the
> origin as part of the scheme.
>
>  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
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2010 00:34:59 GMT

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