Sort out an Address Scheme that fits with Browser Security Model

[flyingzumwalt]

Acceptance Scenario

• Propose an address scheme that fits with Browser Security Model
• Provide working code that shows the address scheme working, and how it can be supported in the browser
• (optional) Document the motivations for the more general fs: namespace and address scheme #4 Document the motivations for the more general fs: namespace and address scheme
• Tackle identifying origins with (or without?) dweb: paths #6 Tackle identifying origins with (or without?) fs:// paths
• Reconcile IPFS absolute addresses with standard URL resolution #7 Reconcile IPFS absolute addresses with standard URL resolution

Background

The proposed use of ipfs/ at the root of addresses in the fs: namespace likefs://ipfs/{content hash} conflicts with the single-domain content origin policy that is central to the browser security model. This brings into question the whole idea of a generic fs: namespace rather than ipfs:

[ghost]

The discussion for this is largely happening in #6.