On 10/18/10 12:16 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:09:24 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc>
wrote:
I would be ok with moz prefixing, though it would be nice to try to
find a solution pretty quickly if all this is is a discussion about
finding an appropriate name for this function.
Well, if people agree with me that the appropriate place would be the
URL object -- assuming for now we are going to get that -- it would be
more involved than just renaming.
Moving these features to the URL object is more complex, but may be
desirable. I'm not sure I can shoe horn that big an adjustment in time
for the CfC (not least of all because there isn't a draft of the URL API
I can refer to. I suppose I could specify the object that Adam has
started with in the File API draft, though). Maybe more discussion is
warranted at a venue like the TPAC.
However, the revocation capability is pretty essential. So this is
something we'd have to add to the URL API. And, the URL API has to be
robust enough for both Stream and Blob use cases.
Since Anne's suggestion is an important but late-breaking one, I'd
propose tabling a CfC till the editor's draft accurately reflects
consensus on what to do with URL generation and revocation for Blobs.
Maybe one thing we can do with existing implementation trains is:
1. Use vendor prefixing for create* and revoke* according to some rules
[1] (since underscores are rarely used in DOM APIs, we'd have
window.moz_createBlobURL() or chrome_createBlobURL( ) ), but I'd really
like to hear from the Chromium folks. Darin? Others?
2. Adding revoke* to Adam's URL *or* create more versatile APIs that are
better named within window* that account for Stream *and* Blob.
A benefit *and* a drawback of reusing the URL object is that this would
make Blob URLs and HTTP URLs within the same object. It makes sense to
revoke a Blob URL, but much less sense to revoke another URL. The
schemes are different, but they *do* behave pretty much similarly.
I'd like a bit more implementer feedback, especially since doing 2.
would be a pretty late breaking change. I'm in favor of the best
solution, but hate late breaking changes. Chrome folks?
-- A*
[1]
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tantek-Mozilla-projects#DOM_API_vendor_prefixing
