Le 23 janv. 2011 à 18:13, Glenn Maynard a écrit :
But that's the point: when you put pictures (or tax forms, or other private
files) on a webserver, you have mechanisms for access control. You wouldn't
put private files on a publically-accessible webserver; you put them on a
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting them on a publically-accessible webserver.
How so?
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting them on a publically-accessible webserver.
How so?
One makes them
On Sun, 23 Jan 2011 22:27:56 +0100, Glenn Maynard gl...@zewt.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2011, at 01:04 , Glenn Maynard wrote:
Putting family photos in a directory and giving a webpage access to it
isn't the same as putting
On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Charles McCathieNevile cha...@opera.com
wrote:
Not in my experience. People put them somewhere on facebook.com or
skype.com
or something, which makes them accessible through a very small number of
single webpages. And often without loggin in, those are not
The Entry.toURI method specified in the FileSystem spec [1] currently
has an open issue to define its format. I believe we also need to
describe the ways in which it can and cannot be used, as some
potential uses may have security implications.
I propose the following format:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
I think that, for the domain that owns the asset referred to by the
URI, pretty much any reasonable use should be allowed:
video/audio/img/iframe/script sources, XHR [GET only], etc. I'm
iffier on allowing any access to
