- 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