Hi, On Jun 11, 2010, at 15:43 , Adrian Bateman wrote: > On Wednesday, June 02, 2010 5:27 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote: >> 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 > > Do you think the URL scheme should be specified for each use of Blob or more > broadly? For example, Blob is used in the File Reader API but also possibly > in the Capture API in a different way. It might be useful to be able to use a > different scheme for these different purposes to help the user agent route > requests to the appropriate handler.
I'd like to make sure that I follow. Without putting words into your mouth, are you suggesting that if I obtain such a pointer from a file, I would get file-blob:DEADBEEF but if I got it from a capture it would be capture-blob:C00lDBABE? There are several reasons why I'm not in favour of that: - it exposes too much of the underlying implementation, presumably it's not the end of the world to have a single object proxying for various providers - it introduces a debauchery of new schemes, all of which then have to be not only specified by registered - more importantly: it's none of the author's business where I'm giving him my picture from. If he's asking to use capture but I tell my UA to override that and use a file instead, the script should have no way of finding out. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
