On 26 touko, 17:10, Boris Zbarsky <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >> You need this for all protocols, not just HTTP, so you can't leverage > >> the application cache stuff, right? > > > I'm not so sure. Why would I need anything else but HTTP/HTTPS? > > You don't plan to support loading mhtml via file:// ? > > Or if the idea is to use MHTML for "save as" (which I think is a > wonderful idea), you don't plan to support saving ftp:// pages? Or > pages from various extension protocols?
Valid points. What would prevent us from using the cache if our component would use a specific client id to access the cache? > >> What javascript actually breaks, and why, if you go the URI-rewriting > >> route? > > > Any Javascript that rewrites some URIs itself. > > OK, granted. Is this common? My guess would be it is not used in large scale. > > It might be that the URI-rewriting route is the only feasible > > solution, even if I'm not very fond of it. > > Well, it's the simplest one without somewhat widespread changes, I > think.... That doesn't make it the only feasible one, nor necessarily > the most desirable. Maybe the right thing to do is to make those > widespread changes. I'm not sure if I have the skills for the task. Several others seem to have reached the same point as I have. _______________________________________________ dev-tech-network mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-network
