I think this API would be a very useful util to have in extensions On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:17 AM, Colin Bleckner <[email protected]> wrote: > That would definitely work. That could even be tied into a more general URL > API (I think Mozilla might have something similar?). Something like: > > var urlObject = chrome.url.parse("cnn.com/story"); // Could throw an > exception if the URL is not valid > var aDomain = urlObject.domain; // "cnn.com" > var aPath = urlObject.path; // "/story" > var bookmarkableURL = urlObject.fullURL; // "http://cnn.com/story"; > > Colin > > Nick Baum wrote: > > Alternatively, could we expose the urlFixerUpper as an extension API? > Then Colin could do > chrome.bookmarks.create(...chrome.urlFixerUpper(myUrl)...); > > Nick > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Colin Bleckner <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Right now I've hacked together a function that checks to see if the URL >> I'm about to add starts with known protocols and, if it doesn't, >> automatically prepends "http://"; to it. This (kind of) works, but I'm still >> discovering that it doesn't handle certain protocols like "chrome://" or >> <awesome new protocol that you guys add in Chrome 5.0 that I didn't know >> existed> and I'm fiddling with it more often than I'd like. My options are >> to either sit down and write (or find) a complete URI parser in Javascript >> or use whatever you guys have already built (and are going to keep up to >> date for me!). You can imagine which option I prefer. :) >> >> Colin >> >> Aaron Boodman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Erik Kay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> This is a really good idea. Apparently, I'm not running the URL >> through our URLFixerUpper class (I'm not making that name up), which >> does a bunch of stuff to fix up URLs that someone may have typed in or >> copied and pasted in (not just the http:// example you gave). >> >> I filed http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=22038 for >> this. In the future, feel free to just go ahead and file the bug >> directly. >> >> >> I would have leaned the other way, that our API should be pedantic and >> require a correct URL. In some cases, passing an incomplete URL is a >> bug on the developer's part and they would want to know at development >> time, rather than storing bad data. >> >> - a >> >> > > > > >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chromium-extensions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-extensions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
