- From: Bert Bos <Bert.Bos@sophia.inria.fr>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 18:49:06 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > Bert Bos wrote: > > it seems there is a technology missing: maybe browsers should support > > some format that is in fact a ZIP or TAR of a compound document... > > See http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/components/signed-scripts.html -- > this talks about putting an entire webpage in a signed JAR, but the jar: > protocol works for any ZIP/JAR file, signed or not, in Mozilla. > > It's not a performance winner quite yet due to the way caching of the jar file > is (not) done, but we're hoping to fix that... Looks to me that Mozilla should talk to KDE a bit :-) KDE uses the tar format to store a Web page with its dependent styles, images and scripts. It uses the extension .war (Web ARchive) and assigns it the unregistered MIME type application/x-webarchive. The purpose is archiving, not signing, but those are not incompatible. Why does Mozilla use a protocol jar:, rather than a MIME type? Bert PS. For the anecdote: about five years ago, W3C looked into creating a working group to define such a packaging format. Some people proposed to use an existing format (ZIP or TAR) and just specify which file to extract first, others proposed to define a new XML format instead (remember that this was at the height of the XML hype), but most of all there wasn't enough interest... -- Bert Bos ( W 3 C ) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/people/bos/ W3C/ERCIM bert@w3.org 2004 Rt des Lucioles / BP 93 +33 (0)4 92 38 76 92 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 11:51:44 UTC