在 2017年04月17日 20:43, Roger Hågensen 写道:
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
The problem is, what if users open `test_files\page2.html`or
`test_files\page3.html`directly? Can they access `test_files\config.json`?
This is to be solve by the "muli-page application" convention. By the
way, the name of the directory is usually `foo_files`, not `foo.html_files`.
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.
Chrome can be configured to ask for location when saving a page, then
you can name it as you will.
The "xxx_files" convention was introduced by IE or Netscape long ago,
and other browsers just follow 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.
Yeah, I think it is unlike harmful to allow write/listing permission as
well.
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).
There is no magic link between `foo.html` and `foo_files/`, this is just
a trick of Windows Explorer. You can change things by hand in that
directory as you will.
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.
