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

Re: File Upload Status ?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:17:21 -0700
Message-ID: <48A100C1.6080407@sicking.cc>
To: Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>
CC: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

Sam Weinig wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

I agree having the only available API be a synchronous one is bad. 
Having both sync and async access available seems like the way to go.

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 03:20:34 GMT

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