- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 02:58:11 +0000
- To: "arun@mozilla.com" <arun@mozilla.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, public-device-apis <public-device-apis@w3.org>
On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 3:37 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: > On 6/22/10 8:44 AM, Adrian Bateman wrote: > > I think it makes more sense for the URL to be opaque and let user > > agents figure > > out the optimal way of implementing origin and other checks. > > I think it may be important to define: > > * Format. I agree that this could be something simple, but it should be > defined. By opaque, do you mean undefined? > * Behavior with GET. For this, I propose using a subset of HTTP/1.1 > responses. I think we agree. I actually meant well-defined but opaque to JavaScript consumers. In other words script in a web page can't deduce any meaningful information from the string. If we're aiming for that property then it makes sense that the entire scheme be defined (something like filedata:00000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000). We can bikeshed the scheme name later but I'd prefer something more generic now url is off Blob. I agree that there should be HTTP/1.1 response codes for GET. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 02:59:50 UTC