- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:05:58 +0200
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>
- CC: "uri@w3.org" <uri@w3.org>
On 2014-04-29 10:42, Paul Prescod wrote: > Thank you, that video clarified. > > The way the browsers are implemented, it is more seamless to launch an > external application with some data using a URL protocol rather than a > content-type. > > http://www.chromeplugins.org/google/chrome-plugins/how-start-external-applications-9717.html > > I have done this myself in the past. > > I don't know what to say: the implementation defects of the browsers are > at odds with how web architecture is supposed to work. URL handlers are > not supposed to be application-launchers. They are supposed to describe > the actual protocol for downloading or manipulating data. Think of the > mess that will arise if every file format also needs a standardized URI > format as a way of working around browser behaviours. > > If you do not worry about a formal standardization process at the W3C > then nobody will care that you are using URIs in this way. > > The systemic fix is that HTML should have a way of stating that the > target file is designed to be "transient" and the user should not be > harassed about a filename for storage. If the user wants to save the > data then they could do a "Save As" from the viewer app. > .... Not sure what you're trying to fix here. If the browser knows the handler for the media type, it's supposed to download to a temporary file and pass that to the media type handler. Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:06:33 UTC