- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:26:10 +0100
- To: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 7:18 AM, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> I have two concerns with the scheme-based approach. >> >> * It dramatically complicates origin handling. This is something we've >> seen multiple times in gecko and something that I expect authors will >> struggle with too. >> >> * It makes it impossible to have create a relative URL from inside the >> zip file to refer to something on the same server but outside of the >> zip file. Since anything outside of the zip file uses a different >> scheme, it means that you have to use an absolute URL. Not even URLs >> starting with "/" nor "//" can be used. > > Apologies for being late to the thread. Just wanted to agree with both of > these points. This only seems valuable to me if we can do it in the context > of http(s)://. I don't see how that relates to the points. The sub-scheme approach still works with HTTP. Origin handling would be more complicated. Anyway, unless someone volunteers I'll write up a comparison of the various approaches in due course. Meanwhile, I'd still be very much interested in hearing implementer interest as without multi-vendor buy-in this whole exercise is futile. Mozillians appears in favor. Googlers appear somewhat reluctant, and everyone else is silent. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2013 08:26:36 UTC