W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

FileUpload Spec | Editor's Draft | Re: Call for Consensus: a new WD of the File Upload spec

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:28:01 -0700
Message-ID: <48F67C81.3050602@mozilla.com>
To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>

The Call for Consensus regarding a new WD of the FileUpload 
specification notwithstanding, I think it prudent to *not* publish a WD 
till members of the WG get a chance to comment on my editor's draft, and 
till the potential F2F at the upcoming TPAC has taken place.

I'd thus like commentary on the editor's draft [1] of the FileUpload 
specification.  I apologize in advance for any unseemly formatting, and 
present the major changes introduced:

1. A Requirements and Use Cases section.  This was deemed the first step 
in previous listserv discussion.

2. The FileException now also has the generic SECURITY_ERR which was 
introduced in the XMLHttpRequest specification (and which may get added 
to DOMException as part of DOMCore3).  Scenarios in which this is thrown 
include "loop spam" where the FileDialog is invoked in a way that it 
can't be dismissed till the user selects something.  Other scenarios 
should be described better -- feedback welcome. 

3. Introduction of HTMLFileInputElement, which should be defined here as 
the means to invoke the .file[] property on an input element of type 
file which returns FileList.  Implementations do this without an 
interface named HTMLFileInputElement presently, so perhaps not extending 
HTMLInputElement is the right thing to do.

4. Introduction of a readonly Blob attribute of the File interface, 
which returns further Blobs.  So far, I've only exposed the slice() 
method, but intend to add asynchronous methods that Google has defined.  
But, right now, this draft sets forth the possibility of *both* 
synchronous (e.g. getAsBinary) and asynchronous methods (via Blob).  
Previous listserv traffic suggests that having synchronous methods 
alongside asynchronous ones is unpalatable -- is that a correct assumption?

Perhaps after TPAC, a WD can be published with sections with more spec 
text.  In the meantime, commentary on existing sections welcome.

-- A*
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileUpload/publish/FileUpload.xhtml
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2008 23:28:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:28 GMT