- From: Roger Hågensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:25:51 +0200
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 2017-04-18 10:08, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> There is https://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/ > > Right, those are about making applications distributed over HTTPS work > when the user is not connected. That idea doesn't necessitate file > URLs and we're still working towards that ideal with Fetch, HTML, and > Service Workers. All browsers seem on board with that general idea > too, which is great. But being able to access files added to a "subfolder" of said offline app won't be possible I assume? Maybe just adding the ability to ask the user if accessing this or that file or this and that folder for indexing (and accessing the files within) would be better. A different open file requester would be needed, and a requester for open folder + access contents of folder would be needed. That way the file paths can be retrieve an used with <audio>, <video>, Fetch and so on. > ...they're more independent than that. (And we don't really > appreciate any copying that takes place. It's a lot less as of late, > but it still happens, as documented in e.g., > https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 and > https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking.) Ok that is a bit of an asshat move. I've got nothing against forking but there is obviously a right and a wrong way to do that. Does the WHATWG and W3C meet/have a common group at all? (for the editors) So that cross-group messes can be handled/avoided? -- Unless specified otherwise, anything I write publicly is considered Public Domain (CC0). Roger Hågensen, Freelancer, Norway.
Received on Tuesday, 18 April 2017 08:26:26 UTC