- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 08:02:26 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
I can't speak for all of Google, but I'm in favour. On 5 Sep 2013 01:26, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > 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 15:02:54 UTC