W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > uri@w3.org > August 2011

Re: Discussion of Blob URI Scheme for Binary Data Access | IETF

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 15:08:16 -0400
Message-ID: <4E4428A0.303@mozilla.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
CC: uri@w3.org, GK@ninebynine.org, joseph@josephholsten.com
On 8/11/11 12:46 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
> On 2011-08-11 00:20, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> Greetings URI Listserv,
>> Firstly, sincere apologies for the delay between responses about the
>> matter of the File API and the Blob URI scheme.
>> Secondly, many thanks for all the advice you've sent my way -- it's been
>> *extremely* useful. I have updated the File API Editor's Draft:
>> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#url
>> and have informed my edits based on actionable feedback by Joseph A. P.
>> Holsten [1], Julian Reschke (e.g. see email #[2], amongst others), and
>> Graham Klyne (both in email# [3] and off list). My goal is to respond to
>> concerns raised on this list before moving towards W3C's CR phase; where
>> feasible, I've responded to your feedback with additional details,
>> notably justification of choices made as well as some more formalism in
>> the definition of things.
>> ...
> I see that there's now a discussion of URN:UUID:; that's good. I still 
> think the reasons for inventing a new scheme are unconvincing.

We'll have to agree to disagree, agreeably :)

> The problem of global uniqueness is still there; unless you have a 
> REQUIRED syntax for the opaque part, there is no way to guarantee 
> global uniqueness.

Actually, since the last time we discussed this, I've strengthened the 
requirements considerably, even suggesting character ranges from 
Unicode.  I stop just shy of REQUIRING UUID, but you'll note that this 
is a substantial change (banning reserved chars, etc.).  Your suggestion 
to me was to flesh out the "repertoire" of the opaqueString production, 
and I've tried to do just that, but also allowed Chrome's use of blob: 
URI labeling (I disagree with it, but not strongly enough to tell them 
not to do it).  I think we've probably got a pretty good guarantee of 
global uniqueness; not least of all, I REQUIRE global uniqueness, make a 
prescription, and leave the actual detail to implementers.  I think this 
stands as sufficient.

-- A*
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 19:08:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:25:15 UTC