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: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:46:00 -0700
Message-ID: <48F8DD68.1010905@mozilla.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

All,

Maceij wrote:
>>
>>> [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
>>
>> Were you referring to [3] above? I didn't actually realize that Apple
>> was proposing that as a v1 for the FileUpload spec. Apologies for
>> that, it was certainly not intended to be ignored.
>
> Yes, [3] was our intended proposal for v1 of the file upload spec. I 
> don't recall hearing any objection to publishing that as v1.
>
> Arun did not ever respond to that email thread, and your only comment 
> was "This sounds like a great idea to me."
>
1. Again, I apologize for embarking on a direction that wasn't what 
Apple envisioned, but your intention to make [3] above a "v1" in lieu of 
the a more expansive spec. wasn't clear to me.  Also, I didn't respond 
to the thread because Jonas' post affirming that it "... sounds like a 
great idea..." was sufficient.  Thus, I took the proposal as a key 
component in a more expansive spec., but not as a v1 spec. in and of itself.

2. Posts to this listserv by various Apple engineers about the perils of 
a synchronous I/O API have made good, cogent arguments.  Moreover, 
Maciej suggests that Apple *won't* implement a specification with such 
APIs.  I discussed this with Jonas; we're amenable to dropping these 
from the specification, and thus, I no longer consider this a major 
blocking issue in any way.  Going forward, Mozilla may move developers 
away from our own synchronous APIs provided we agree on something that 
works in this specification, but that remains TBD.

3. Maciej, you state that you're in the process of posting to this 
listserv what's wrong with the Blob approach [1].  It was, after all, a 
strawperson for an asynchronous API, and thus I thought it worth 
including in a v1 specification.  Note that I started with only the 
slice() method.  I look forward to your commentary, since this will 
allow me to better justify not considering it till a v2.

In retrospect, I'm glad I solicited commentary with the small amount of 
spec. text that I did add, as opposed to my other modifications ;-)  I 
suppose this one goes back to the drawing board; in the long run, this 
may be desirable anyway.

-- A*
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0118.html
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 18:46:44 GMT

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