- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:54:10 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> Maybe using a global object is better since we don't really want these >> functions to appear on documents created using XMLHttpRequest, >> DOMParser, etc. >> >> Quick, someone suggest a name, whoever comes up with one first wins a >> beer for next TPAC :) > > I think that whoever suggested URL already wins that beer. ^_^ I guess me and Anne will have to split it then, since he proposed using the URL constructor, and I said that I didn't like using the constructor but suggested putting the functions on the URL interface object. Though it's quite possible that someone beat me to that proposal, in which case they better speak up or loose a beer forever :-) The downside of using URL though is that both Firefox and IE, and I think Chrome too, seems to be ready to ship createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL very soon, much sooner than the URL object will be fully specified. That means that if we set up the URL interface object for createObjectURL/revokeObjectURL, then it'll be harder to feature detect support for the "real" URL object. Other than that I'd be happy to use URL. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:55:10 UTC