W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2014

Re: [whatwg] How to determine content-type of file: protocol

From: 段垚 <duanyao@ustc.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 22:26:47 +0800
Message-ID: <53D7AF27.30907@ustc.edu>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
于 2014/7/29 18:48, Anne van Kesteren 写道:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 2:26 PM, duanyao <duanyao@ustc.edu> wrote:
>> I think rule 5.1 should be applied to both static fetching and XHR consistently. Browsers should set Content-Type header to local files' actual type for XHR, and interpret
>> them accordingly. But firefox developers think this would break some existing codes that already rely on firefox's behavior
>> (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1037762).
>>
>> What do you think?
> Basically, this comes down to what
> http://fetch.spec.whatwg.org/#basic-fetch should do. "For now,
> unfortunate as it is, file and ftp URLs are left as an exercise for
> the reader."
>
> There's an enormous amount of tricky things to define around file
> URLs, this being one of them.
Are there some resources on those "tricky things"?
> My theory to date has been that defining
> those things has less benefit than defining other things, such as
> parsing URLs or the way fetching works in general.
I agree that file protocol is less important than http. However packaged 
web applications (PhoneGap app, Chrome app, Firefox OS app, Window 8 
HTML app, etc) are increasing their popularity, and they are using file: 
protocol or similar things to access their local assets. So I think it's 
worthwhile to work on file
protocol to reduce porting issues of packaged web applications.
> If someone were to
> sort the issues out and get implementations to converge I would
> certainly not be opposed to including the result of such work in the
> specification.
Firefox developers said they won't change their implementation of XHR 
with file: before the spec explicitly define the behavior,
so it looks like a chicken-egg problem to me.

Also I'd like to know some general principles of introducing new URL 
schemes (like file:) into web standards:
(1) Should new URLs mimic http's behaviors as much as possible? Such as 
status codes, content-type, etc.
(2) Should XHR and static resource fetching behave consistently with new 
URLs?
As a web developer, my personal answers are all yes.

Regards,
     Duan Yao.
Received on Tuesday, 29 July 2014 14:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:22 UTC