W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2017

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

From: duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 20:54:05 +0800
To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, David Kendal <me@dpk.io>
Message-ID: <7cadba86-70aa-f907-8c75-b44d24691686@ustc.edu>
Cc: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>
在 2017年04月15日 02:09, Domenic Denicola 写道:
> From: David Kendal [mailto:me@dpk.io]
>
>> This is getting silly. <https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#The_WHATWG>
>> says the WHAT WG's purpose is to 'evolve the Web'; since file: URIs are part
>> of the web, this problem falls within the WHAT WG's remit.
> file: URLs are part of the web, e.g. parsing such URLs when used in <a> tags, just like gopher: URLs or mailto: URLs. The behavior once navigating to file: URLs (or gopher: URLs, or mailto: URLs) is off the web, and outside the scope of the WHATWG's work.
This still doesn't explain why file: protocol CAN'T be part of the web 
(and inside the the scope of WHATWG).
No one is asking for web over gopher or ftp because http is a better 
alternative; No one is asking for web over
mailto: because it is not a protocol for transporting data. But many 
pepople are asking for web over file:
protocol because (1) file: protocol shares a lot of charaters with http, 
which makes them believe that web can
work reasonably well over it -- with some effort. (2) http can't cover 
some use cases of file: protocol, and they
believe these use cases are important.

The argument that http: is  for "open" or "world wide" contents and 
file: is for "walled gardens" is rather weak.
So many softwares on linux ship manuals in html format, and they are 
open and world wide. People can also
distribute html files via ed2k or bittorrent, and they are open and 
world wide. In contrast, iCloud, Google Drive,
and OneDrive are private by default, although http and web technologies 
are used.

>
>> If you continue with this argument, I will simply ignore you. I am more
>> interested in debating how to solve the problem than quibbling over who
>> should solve it.
> Please do so. I'm just stating the WHATWG's position on this for the clarity of other participants of this list; I would certainly prefer that you do not engage further in attempting to redefine the WHATWG's scope.
>
Received on Monday, 17 April 2017 12:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 17 April 2017 12:55:13 UTC