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: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 17:08:32 +0800
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Message-ID: <ad122b6b-58cc-0da0-20e6-85d61fef5fa4@ustc.edu>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Ashley Sheridan <ash@ashleysheridan.co.uk>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Roger Hågensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no>
在 2017年04月19日 16:09, Anne van Kesteren 写道:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 5:45 AM, duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu> wrote:
>> These have been a lot of discussion on that in this thread. Do you think writing a more formal document would be helpful?
> Perhaps. Fundamentally, I don't think you've made a compelling enough
> case for folks to become interested and wanting to work in this space
> and help you solve your problem. You've also have been fairly
> dismissive of the alternative points of view, such as the web being
> fundamentally linked to HTTP and that distributing (offline)
> applications over HTTP is the goal. That might make folks less
> compelled to engage with you.

I'm sorry to make you feel that I have been dismissive of the 
alternative points of view.
This is really not intended. I just don't quite understand some of those 
points. For example,
Is "the web being fundamentally linked to HTTP" just the current status 
of the industry, or
the inherent philosiphy of the web? If the latter, some explanation or 
document would be very
appreciated.

>
> I suspect no browser, and I'm pretty certain about Mozilla since I
> work there, is interested in furthering file URLs.

It is very helpful to hear clear a signals from browser vendors, 
positive or not. Thanks.

> Most new operating
> systems abstract away the file system and the web as browsers see it
> has always done that. There's ways to pull files in, but there's not
> much use for letting applications write them out again (other than
> downloads, which are quite a bit different).
>
>

Doesn't file: protocol also abstract away much of the file system? What 
parts make it a bad abstraction?
You mentioned casing and unicode normalization.

I'm not particularly eager to write access myself. Maybe we can 
seperately discuss read and write cases.
Received on Wednesday, 19 April 2017 09:10:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 19 April 2017 09:10:21 UTC