Re: FYI: Mozilla's Resource Packages

2009/11/17 Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

> Questions that come to mind:
>
> (1) Is this specific to HTML? If yes, shouldn't it be proposed to the HTML
> WG?
>

Possibly? I don't know much about how these things happen, standards-wise.


> (2) The link relation itself should be format-agnostic. It's ok to limit
> deployment and implementation to application/zip for now, though.
>

Right. If there's ever a newer, widely supported compression format that did
the same thing, that would work too.


> (3) Related to that, the "type" parameter on the HTML link element is
> optional in HTML4 as well.
>

Good to know, thanks. I'll make it optional and let the implementation
assume application/zip unless otherwise specified, then.


> (4) I have trouble understanding...:
>
> "You can specify a charset in the resource package definition. If
> unspecified, it is assumed that any non-binary files inside are UTF-8."
>
> Is this about the manifest? This seems to be problematic, as charset
> handling would be different from local file resources (I do agree that
> encouraging UTF-8 is good, though)
>

The manifest probably has to be ASCII (using quoted values like %20 for
spaces etc), sorry about not specifying that.

The UTF-8 default is for any other file in the zip, like JS or CSS, or even
HTML files, should that be useful.

(5) How do non-URL characters in filenames in the ZIP map to URLs in
> content? It appears that a default encoding needs to be defined (such as
> ->UTF-8->percent-escaped).
>

Percent-escaping would be my initial suggestion, but I don't know enough
about any potential issues here if we choose to go that route. I agree that
it needs to be defined, though.

-- 
Alexander Limi · Firefox User Experience · http://limi.net