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: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:09:47 -0700
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: arun@mozilla.com, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <36C422DB-2880-4D08-8377-F1CAC65F5BE1@apple.com>

On Oct 16, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On Oct 15, 2008, at 10:57 PM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>> Maciej,
>>> 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.

By the way, just to clarify, none of my comments should IMO block  
publishing a Working Draft. A Working Draft is for review. But I do  
think we should start over with a  v1 that is stripped down to the  
bare essentials, along the lines of Sam's proposal.

I will add specifically that Apple is unwilling to implement any spec  
that allows synchronous file I/O from the main thread, and would vote  
against advancing such a spec to LC status or higher. Async I/O would  
be acceptable to us, but I think we have a considerable design process  
to go through in order to agree on how it works. I think the Blob API  
is not suitable as is.

Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 03:10:27 UTC

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