- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 18:38:39 +0000
- To: public-webapps@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25914 Arun <arun@mozilla.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #29 from Arun <arun@mozilla.com> --- (In reply to Anne from comment #28) > Don't check for "parse error", see if the algorithm returns failure. Done! > Also, it may not return a host or port. You should probably check if it's a > relative scheme. It's true that it could be a relative scheme, so I check for a relative scheme per your advice. But, it will never be a relative URL; that is, the recursive invocation of the basic URL parser will never also be fed a base URL. So, host will always be extractable, since the emitter methods (URL.createFor and URL.createObjectURL) will always emit a full origin string, namely the effective script origin specified by the settings object. > > I think you probably just want to parse it and then say something like > "return /parsedURL/'s origin". Done! > But maybe I should just bite the bullet and define origin for all URL > schemes we care about. If you do this, some portions of this in File API might be made redundant. We've already made the section on request-response informative; other sections may follow suit. Please give it a check: http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#extractionOfOriginFromIdentifier -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 18:38:42 UTC