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

Re: 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 22:57:48 -0700
Message-ID: <48F6D7DC.6060609@mozilla.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>


> My first question would be:
> Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common 
> interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a draft 
> that is the union of all things in Robin's original spec, all things 
> that Mozilla happened to implement, and a bunch of the things that 
> Google propose?
FWIW, the Berjon spec. actually matches implementation in Mozilla, 
modulo a few differences, which I suppose the "union" reveals.  And I 
*certainly* did not mean to willfully ignore input from anybody.  I 
apologize if this is the impression my current draft gives, and hope to 
fix that very soon.  But, looking back on correspondence from you, I 
find one that says you're ok with a WD being published  but that you 
think that in a v1 WD, the I/O could be removed completely [1].  Sam 
Weinig voiced Apple's caveats which I responded to on public-webapps[2] 
wondering whether these caveats should block at least a WD publication 
[2], but these were really points about synchronous calls in general.

Going further back in time, Sam Weinig proposed standardizing a way to 
use XHR to send files [3], *without* specific ways to get the contents 
of files, leaving room for Blob and other stuff in nsIDOMFile (we can 
probably send Blobs or files).  Nothing in the editor's draft precludes 
that!  Also Sam's email refers to FileHTMLInputElement which exists in 
this draft as well (named HTMLFileInputElement).

> I can give specific technical comments on the things that I think are 
> wrong with this draft, 
*Please do.*.  This editor's draft is very rough, and doesn't reflect 
"fait accompli" thinking.  If you think it too much of a union, maybe I 
should go back and start with a more basic v1, rather than include 
directions we may want to go in anyway?  In another email, you suggest 
Apple thinks direct I/O should be added later[4], maybe along the lines 
of Blob, which is why I went with work in progress -- to add features we 
may want to evolve *anyway.*  Perhaps we can have the definitive 
discussion on synchronous vs. asynchronous (and whether a spec. should 
allow both) and move on.  I don't think anyone at Mozilla holds 
entrenched views here.  I'm pretty optimistic that we can hash this out 
soon, and we should be able to push this spec. out sooner rather than 
later.  It's been stagnant for a long-ish time :-)

-- A*

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008OctDec/0010.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0047.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0387.html
Received on Thursday, 16 October 2008 05:58:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC