- From: Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:41:18 -0700
- To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Aug 11, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com> wrote: >> Just a few weeks ago >> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html >> ) I >> proposed a stripped down version of the File Upload spec (thinking it >> defunct) that matched Mozilla's implementation sans the data >> accessors. >> One reason for not including the data accessors was that we don't >> think >> synchronous access to the disk is a good idea and browser. >> > > Sam, > > I got that you don't think it's a good idea, but not why. Also, I > don't understand the 'browser' at the end. Can you explain this? > > Please quote what you are replying to so to make it clear as to > exactly what you're replying. IM lost. > Sorry, the "and browser" at the end was a typo. I meant to say, "in the browser". The reason synchronous access to the disk is a bad idea is that if the operation takes too long, a big file, a slow network home directory, or for whatever other reason, the browser hangs. It is the same reason synchronous network access can be construed as a bad idea. I was replying to your request for implementors to give you feedback. I am in favor of spec moving forward, but it needs an editor. -Sam
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 02:41:58 UTC