W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2017

Re: [whatwg] Accessing local files with JavaScript portably and securely

From: Roger Hågensen <rh_whatwg@skuldwyrm.no>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2017 10:25:51 +0200
To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
Message-ID: <4a2e8a46-f784-fc6c-be76-09f8ac0d09b8@skuldwyrm.no>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:42 UTC