在 2017年04月15日 02:09, Domenic Denicola 写道:
This still doesn't explain why file: protocol CAN'T be part of the web
(and inside the the scope of WHATWG).
No one is asking for web over gopher or ftp because http is a better
alternative; No one is asking for web over
mailto: because it is not a protocol for transporting data. But many
pepople are asking for web over file:
protocol because (1) file: protocol shares a lot of charaters with http,
which makes them believe that web can
work reasonably well over it -- with some effort. (2) http can't cover
some use cases of file: protocol, and they
From: David Kendal [mailto:m...@dpk.io]
This is getting silly. <https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#The_WHATWG>
says the WHAT WG's purpose is to 'evolve the Web'; since file: URIs are part
of the web, this problem falls within the WHAT WG's remit.
file: URLs are part of the web, e.g. parsing such URLs when used in <a> tags,
just like gopher: URLs or mailto: URLs. The behavior once navigating to file: URLs
(or gopher: URLs, or mailto: URLs) is off the web, and outside the scope of the
believe these use cases are important.
The argument that http: is for "open" or "world wide" contents and
file: is for "walled gardens" is rather weak.
So many softwares on linux ship manuals in html format, and they are
open and world wide. People can also
distribute html files via ed2k or bittorrent, and they are open and
world wide. In contrast, iCloud, Google Drive,
and OneDrive are private by default, although http and web technologies
If you continue with this argument, I will simply ignore you. I am more
interested in debating how to solve the problem than quibbling over who
should solve it.
Please do so. I'm just stating the WHATWG's position on this for the clarity of
other participants of this list; I would certainly prefer that you do not
engage further in attempting to redefine the WHATWG's scope.