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: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:21:30 -0700
Message-ID: <490614BA.3020608@mozilla.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
CC: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Oct 17, 2008, at 11:46 AM, Arun Ranganathan wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Would you be against making it a v1 spec in and of itself?

Note that I'll be taking out a lot of things, including FileDialog and 
synchronous APIs (as discussed).

But I am against dropping asynchronous i/o APIs altogether in v1 without 
a good technical reason.  The Blob API seemed like a workable 
strawperson for the WG, but you had technical nits.  Can you send us the 
technical commentary on Blob?  The same goes for others who express 
reservation about these APIs.

-- A*
Received on Monday, 27 October 2008 19:22:12 GMT

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