On 2017-04-18 10:08, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
There is https://www.w3.org/TR/offline-webapps/
Right, those are about making applications distributed over HTTPS work
when the user is not connected. That idea doesn't necessitate file
URLs and we're still working towards that ideal with Fetch, HTML, and
Service Workers. All browsers seem on board with that general idea
too, which is great.
But being able to access files added to a "subfolder" of said offline
app won't be possible I assume?
Maybe just adding the ability to ask the user if accessing this or that
file or this and that folder for indexing (and accessing the files
within) would be better.
A different open file requester would be needed, and a requester for
open folder + access contents of folder would be needed. That way the
file paths can be retrieve an used with <audio>, <video>, Fetch and so on.
...they're more independent than that. (And we don't really
appreciate any copying that takes place. It's a lot less as of late,
but it still happens, as documented in e.g.,
https://annevankesteren.nl/2016/01/film-at-11 and
https://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Fork_tracking.)
Ok that is a bit of an asshat move. I've got nothing against forking but
there is obviously a right and a wrong way to do that.
Does the WHATWG and W3C meet/have a common group at all? (for the
editors) So that cross-group messes can be handled/avoided?
--
Unless specified otherwise, anything I write publicly is considered
Public Domain (CC0).
Roger Hågensen,
Freelancer, Norway.
