- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:13:27 +0100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 2:14 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I'm sure you've thought about this more than I have, but can you humour me and dig in a bit here? Thanks Mark, I had not fully explored this one yet! > If I wanted to link *within* the HTML, it could still be <a href="#test">, correct? That would be ideal, yes. > Couldn't that be done by saying that for URIs inside a ZIP file, the base URI is effectively an authority-less scheme? > > E.g., for "foo.html" the base uri would be "zip://foo.html". Having thought about this some I think this would require pretty invasive model changes, probably prohibitively so. * Resources that can contain subresources (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, workers, ...) would need to have an outer and inner location. If you have e.g. <a href="#test"> updating the address bar to #path=test.html&id=test is somewhat magic. For <a href="other.html"> it'd be pretty magic too. * For origin comparison you'd have to look at the outer location. Either a sub-scheme or zip-path is a lot simpler as the changes are limited to URL and Fetch rather than most end points, URL, and Fetch. > I *think* the end effect here would be that from the inside, HTML, CSS and JS wouldn't have to be changed to be zipped. Given the above I think that's not true. Unless you mean resources, not specifications, in which case that could probably be correct. > From the outside, if you want to link *into* a zip file, you have to be aware of its structure, but that's really always going to be the case, isn't it? Yes, that's correct. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2013 11:13:59 UTC