On 2017-04-17 13:53, duanyao wrote:
For single page application, browsers restrict `foo.html`'s permission
to `foo_files/` in the same parent directory. Note that it is already a common
practice for browsers
to save a page's resource to a `xxx_files/` directory; browsers just need to
grant the permission
of `xxx_files/`.
I like that idea. But there is no need to treat single and multipage
differently is there?
d:\documents\test.html
d:\documents\test.html_files\page2.html
d:\documents\test.html_files\page3.html
This can handle multipage fine as well.
Anything in the folder test.html_files is considered sandboxed under
test.html
This would allow a user (for a soundboard) to drop audio files into
d:\documents\test.html_files\sounds\jingle\
d:\documents\test.html_files\sounds\loops\
and so on.
And if writing ability is added to javasript then write permission could
be given to those folders (so audio files could be created and stored
without "downloading" them each time)
I just checked what naming Chrome does and it uses the page title. I
can't recall what the other browsers do. And adds _files to it.
So granting read/write/listing permissions for the html file to that
folder and it's subfolders would certainly make single page offline apps
possible.
I have not tested how editing/adding to this folder affect things,
deleting the html file also deletes the folder (at least on Windows 10,
and I seem to recall on Windows 7 as well).
I'm not sure if a offline app needs the folder linked to the html file
or not.
A web developer might create the folder manually in which case there
will be no link. And if zipped and moved to a different
system/downloaded by users then any such html and folder linking will be
lost as well.
Maybe instead of d:\documents\test.html_files\
d:\documents\test.html_data\ could be used?
This would also distinguish it from the current user saved webpages.
--
Unless specified otherwise, anything I write publicly is considered
Public Domain (CC0).
Roger Hågensen,
Freelancer, Norway.
