- From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:13:23 -0800
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Jarred Nicholls <jarred@webkit.org>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAHpoE=i2VbFLqunL1f=OwgLM_HSGTvP5JQzbndQu80dTK88EMg@mail.gmail.com>
There is no requirement for that in the spec/draft, it's useful for our implementation. On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > Is there something requiring that the origin be part of the URL? > > > > On Dec 16, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com> wrote: > > > "and MUST be at least 36 characters long" > > I can't think of any reason for that requirement, seems fine to delete it. > > Webkit and Chrome do use guids but also embed the origin in these url. > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Jarred Nicholls < <jarred@webkit.org> > jarred@webkit.org> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren < <annevk@opera.com> >> annevk@opera.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 12:21:34 +0100, Arun Ranganathan <<aranganathan@mozilla.com> >>> aranganathan@mozilla.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Adrian: I'm willing to relax this. I suppose it *is* inconsistent to >>>> insist on 36 chars when we don't insist on UUID. But I suspect when it >>>> comes time to making blob: a registered protocol (it was discussed on the >>>> IETF/URI listserv), the lack of MUSTs will be a sticking point. We'll take >>>> that as it comes, though :) >>>> >>> >>> I do not really see why Chrome cannot simply use UUID as well. It's not >>> exactly rocket science. It seems that is the only sticking point to just >>> having the same type of URLs across the board. >> >> >> The consistency and predictability of having UUIDs across the board could >> prove useful. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne van Kesteren >>> <http://annevankesteren.nl/>http://annevankesteren.nl/ >>> >>> >> >
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 23:13:51 UTC