W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Discussion of File API at TPAC in Lyon

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:09:50 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikMwH4MLP16+gvT3iD5Y=nw5uJMYfcbXyNEV3Jw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>>> Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these
>>>> functions to appear on documents created using XMLHttpRequest,
>>>> DOMParser, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Quick, someone suggest a name, whoever comes up with one first wins a
>>>> beer for next TPAC :)
>>>
>>> I think that whoever suggested URL already wins that beer.  ^_^
>>
>> I guess me and Anne will have to split it then, since he proposed
>> using the URL constructor, and I said that I didn't like using the
>> constructor but suggested putting the functions on the URL interface
>> object. Though it's quite possible that someone beat me to that
>> proposal, in which case they better speak up or loose a beer forever
>> :-)
>>
>> The downside of using URL though is that both Firefox and IE, and I
>> think Chrome too, seems to be ready to ship
>> createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL very soon, much sooner than the URL
>> object will be fully specified. That means that if we set up the URL
>> interface object for createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL, then it'll be
>> harder to feature detect support for the "real" URL object.
>
> Only marginally.  There'll be properties on URL that can be
> existence-tested for in the future.

Just to make implications clear to everyone. It means that you'll have
to feature detect URL by doing:

if (URL && "protocol" in URL.prototype)

you can't do

if (URL && URL.prototype.protocol)

since that will call the protocol getter with a "this" object set to
something other than a real URL instance and thus throw.

Alternatively, if all implementations are careful to not make URL a
constructor for now, the test will be

if (URL && URL.prototype)


If everyone is fine with this then I am too.

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 02:10:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT