On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:50:13 -0400, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@opera.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 09:19:03 +0200, Michael A. Puls II
<shadow2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not saying file: support should be added to the XHR spec, but there
should be some 'file:// for XHR' guidelines that browsers could use.
Nowhere in the documentation of the Web platform there is documentation
for things to do with file URLs. In fact, file URLs are woefully
underdefined.
It doesn't have to stay that way though.
I do not think adding text to the XMLHttpRequest specification is a good
use of our time until we actually decide that interoperability on the
file URL level matters
I personally think it matters. But, would like to know if anyone else
cares.
and we have someone to drive that effort.
Well, cross-origin issues in browsers should be pretty
protocol-independent. That should mostly leave file: URI format (described
better than RFC 1738), access limits (what directories from the base are
allowed), and HTTP status code equivalents (for use with things like XHR).
Are vendors interested in having all of that as an RFC or W3C spec for
example?
Thanks
--
Michael
