I'm not sure I understand the problem. Let's say your use case is Midnight / Norton / Total Commander (have no idea what any of these products are, I assume AV?). Why do they need to write filenames that don't conform to the restrictions posited above? -Ian 2010/2/4 Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Arve Bersvendsen <arveb@opera.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:24:13 +0100, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> I think you leave the realm of "corner cases" when you're talking >>> about the behavior of the majority of systems on which the code can be >>> expected to run. And by adding these [fairly minor, IMO] restrictions >>> on filenames, your app developers don't have to write >>> platform-specific code at all--they just write to the web platform. >>> >> >> The downside to adding restrictions is that you also restrict where and >> how the Filesystem/directory API can or can't be used. If your use-case is >> roughly allowing Flickr to crawl your photo directory and upload at will, >> you're not going to get into trouble. If, on the other hand, your use-case >> is more complex (imagine something like Midnight/Norton/Total commander as a >> locally installed widget), this least-common-denominator approach is going >> to cause problems. > > > Those are 2 pretty distinct use cases. Maybe both need to be supported by > the API? >
Received on Thursday, 4 February 2010 20:28:39 UTC