On 6/2/10 5:06 PM, Jian Li wrote:
Hi, Arun,
I have one question regarding the scheme for Blob.url. The latest spec says
that "The proposed URL scheme is filedata:. Mozilla already ships with
moz-filedata:". Since the URL is now part of the Blob and it could be used
to refer to both file data blob and binary data blob, should we consider
making the scheme as "blobdata:" for better generalization? In addition,
we're thinking it will probably be a good practice to encode the security
origin in the blob URL scheme, like blobdata:
http://example.com/33c6401f-8779-4ea2-9a9b-1b725d6cd50b. This will make
doing the security origin check easier when a page tries to access the blob
url that is created in another process, under multi-process architecture.
This is a good suggestion. I particularly like the idea of encoding the
origin as part of the scheme.
Indeed, the URL scheme seems to be more sort of implementation details.
Different browser vendors can choose the appropriate scheme, like Mozilla
ships with moz-filedata. How do you think?
Actually, I'm against leaving it totally up to implementations. Sure,
the spec. could simply state how the URL behaves without mentioning
format much, but we identified in the past [1] that it was wise to
specify things reliably, so that developers didn't rely on arbitrary
behavior in one implementation and expect something similar in another.
It's precisely that genre of underspecified behavior that got us in
trouble before ;-)
-- A*
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009OctDec/0743.html
