- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:38:07 -0700
- To: "Michael A. Puls II" <shadow2531@gmail.com>
- CC: public-webapps@w3.org
Michael, I'd like to distinguish between file:// and filedata: which is what the current FileAPI proposes. While file:// behavior is undefined and pretty vague across user agents, filedata: is spec'd to be used within web applications, has a lifetime, an origin policy, and does return a subset of HTTP status codes (which are not 405 if requested with GET). I'd say that file:// is convenient for user agents to surface local files for users, but filedata: could be used within web applications. In particular: > > 2. For file:// access, simulate the appropriate HTTP status code for > the result so that this.status and this.statusText can be used properly. > > 3. Don't have open() throw for "file not found" and use 404 for > this.status instead. > > 4. If file:// access isn't implemented (like in IE), don't have open() > throw. Instead, make this.status be 501. > > 5. If the request URI result in too long of a path, use status code 414. > > 6. If the request URI points to a certain type of file the *browser* > doesn't want to allow access to (maybe an .exe), use status code 415. > > 7. If a method besides "GET" is used for open(), don't throw and use > status code 405. > These behaviors match what filedata: might do (but not exactly as you say so above). http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileAPI.html#filedataurl-if There are a few conditions that are not properly specified currently in the editor's draft, but I'd like to remedy that soon :-) I think that the use cases you have for file:// being a first class citizen of web (in terms of use across all request mechanisms) could be applied to filedata: instead. -- A*
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:38:51 UTC