- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:58:29 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- 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 5:54 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > 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. Only marginally. There'll be properties on URL that can be existence-tested for in the future. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 01:59:22 UTC