W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2008

[whatwg] Application deployment

From: Kristof Zelechovski <giecrilj@stegny.2a.pl>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:58:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CF6B9319C96D4C5B93E21F8BD118D6EA@POCZTOWIEC>
I think that just puts some restrictions on the arrangement on the server.
My guess is that once a resource is shadowed, it becomes invisible, and the
server should not serve resources that might be shadowed unless the
publisher knows what she is doing.  It is not the only way to make a site
inconsistent.

Chris

 

  _____  

From: whatwg-bounces@lists.whatwg.org
[mailto:whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:51 AM
To: Dave Singer
Cc: whatwg at whatwg.org
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Application deployment

 

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Dave Singer <singer at apple.com> wrote:


c) that the contents of the container, once fetched and un-packed, logically
'shadow' the directory where the container came from.


It sounds like that affects all loads, which leads to issues:

So if I load <http://www.example.com/x.m21#y.html*q>
http://www.example.com/x.m21#y.html and (in the same document, or in another
tab?) load http://www.example.com/z.html, and x.m21 contains a z.html but
the server also responds to http://example.com/z.html, does the second load
(z.html) come from the server or the container? Does it depend on whether
the second load starts before the first load finishes?

The same questions apply to Russell's proposal.

Rob

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/attachments/20080729/fe390db5/attachment.htm>
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2008 02:58:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:03 UTC