W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: File Upload Status ?

From: Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:41:18 -0700
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B74A1BB8-7C32-4FF0-A3C5-3D408D00AD9A@apple.com>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>


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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT