- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:38:14 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>
- CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:47 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > Oh, definitely, we still need the createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL > functions. Sorry, that was probably unclear. > > However we're still left without a place to put them. Maybe it's as > simple as putting them on the document object? That works nicely since > their lifetime is scoped to that of the document object. > > Another possibility is putting them on the URL interface object. I.e. > not using URL objects themselves, but rather something like this: > > x = URL.createObjectURL(myblock); > typeof x == "string"; > URL.revokeObjectURL(x); > > But I think I prefer the document solution. I thought we'd decided on a new global object and just needed to come up with a name. This is what we're currently planning to do. Mostly though, I just want us to decide. This seems to have changed every month for a long time and I'd like us to pick a solution and stick to it. >From http://www.w3.org/2010/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item16 > jonas: the proposed solution is some global object where we put 2 functions > anne: is there some existing place we could put them? > sam: maybe window.blob? but you want to do it for stream too so maybe that's not a good place > ericu and others: k, let's move on
Received on Friday, 12 November 2010 23:38:57 UTC