- From: Nicholas Shanks <contact@nickshanks.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2013 14:04:34 +0100
- To: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On 28 August 2013 14:32, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > We have thought of three approaches for zip URL design thus far: > > * Using a sub-scheme (zip) with a zip-path (after !): > zip:http://www.example.org/zip!image.gif > * Introducing a zip-path (after %!): http://www.example.org/zip%!image.gif > * Using media fragments: http://www.example.org/zip#path=image.gif Am I missing something? I assume you want to basically send a whole bunch of files down the pipe when any one of them is requested, not send the individual file's bytestream from a zip. If so, then why is this not acceptable: === <a href="http://website.example/game.webzip/load.html">Load Game</a> GET http://website.example/game.webzip/load.html Accept: application/webzip, */*;q=0.1 # UA supports looking inside zips 200 OK Content-Type: application/webzip Content-Location: /game.webzip # server knows to send zip -- vs. -- <a href="http://website.example/game.webzip/load.html">Load Game</a> GET http://website.example/game.webzip/load.html Accept: text/html, */*;q=0.1 # no support 200 OK Content-Type: text/html Content-Location: /game.webzip_files/load.html # server knows file resides elsewhere === HTTP server knows to send a zip file if UA supports a new content type. HTTP server also knows to send back the file from inside the zip (or an unzipped sibling directory to contain the file to serve) to clients that do not support the new mime type. This can be as simple as a mod_rewrite rule executed iff mod_webzip is not loaded. MIME type would only be requested in Accept header by supporting client if the path contained /\.webzip\// otherwise omitted. All relative URIs work as if the file was at the request URI. No multiple scheme hassles, no multiple fragment hassles. No special delimiters that might already be in use. The change in filename also means a concious action on part of the webmaster to allow access. As suggested, the file format can be a stricter form of zip that doesn't allow multiple file tables. The server would have to validate this before sending the file As suggested, the content types of resources in the zip would be determined from a list of file extensions defined by the spec. Anything else get's a default such as application/unknown. -- Nicholas.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2013 13:05:48 UTC