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

RE: Updates to File API

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:58:11 +0000
To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
CC: 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>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB2F272869@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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). We can bikeshed the scheme
name later but I'd prefer something more generic now url is off Blob.

I agree that there should be HTTP/1.1 response codes for GET.

Cheers,

Adrian.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 02:59:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:39 GMT