Re: Packaging on the Web specification

Alex,

From: Alex Russell slightlyoff@google.com Date: 14 April 2014 at 06:00:31
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Jeni Tennison wrote:
> > From: Alex Russell slightlyoff@google.com Date: 8 April 2014 at 19:25:10
> > > - In section 4.1, example 19 I see: scope="/" . ISTM that the "*" at the
> > > end should be explicit. Also, is it possible to add multiple scopes in a
> > > single declaration using a separator of some sort?
> >
> > Providing a single URL prefix in the scope is, I think, the simplest thing
> > that could possibly work. There are lots of ways we could make it more
> > complicated. I’m not sure what value adding ‘*’ at the end provides?
> > Doesn’t it just make people think they can do '*.png’? Can you explain a
> > bit more about why you think these are worth the extra complexity? Is it to
> > be consistent with something else?
> >
>  
> It'd bring us into line with the globbing syntax used by ServiceWorkers for
> declaring URL scopes. They do longest-prefix-match lookup against patterns
> which may end in a "*". See:
> https://github.com/slightlyoff/ServiceWorker/blob/master/explainer.md#longest-prefix-matching  

OK. Why is it used in ServiceWorker? Are you expecting to extend it to support full globbing syntax in the future? Or is it to distinguish between ServiceWorkers whose scope is a single URL vs those that cover multiple URLs?

Given that packages *won’t* have a scope of a single URL, and there’s an equivalence relation whereby code parsing the scope of a package can just add ‘*’ to the end to get to the syntax needed by ServiceWorker, is it worth requiring that extra character (which people will always need to add, and will forget to add) in the package scope?

Jeni
--  
Jeni Tennison
http://www.jenitennison.com/

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 11:46:01 UTC