- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 23:22:08 -0800
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Cc: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > On 12/01/2014 10:22 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote: >>> >>> What we really need to do is get some popular library or website to take >>> a >>> dependency on mobile Chrome or mobile Safari's file URL parsing. *Then* >>> we'd >>> get interoperability, and quite quickly I'd imagine. >> >> >> To my knowledge, all browsers explicitly block websites from having >> any interactions with file:// URLs. I.e. they don't allow loading an >> <img> from file:// or even link to a file:// HTML page using <a >> href="file://...">. Even though both those are generally allowed cross >> origin. >> >> So it's very difficult for webpages to depend on the behavior of >> file:// parsing, even if they were to intentionally try. > > Relevant related reading, look at the description that the current URL > Living Standard provides for the origin for file: URLs: > > https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#origin > > I tend to agree with Jonas. Ideally the spec would match existing browser > behavior. When that's not possible, getting agreements from browser vendors > on the direction would suffice. > > When neither exist, a more accurate description (such as the one cited above > in the Origin part of the URL Standard) is appropriate. To be clear, I'm proposing to remove any and all normative definition of file:// handling from the spec. Because I don't think there is interoperability, nor do I think that it's particularly high priority to archive it. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2014 07:23:05 UTC