W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: File API Feedback

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:30:24 +0000 (UTC)
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: arun@mozilla.com, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0906190302490.16244@hixie.dreamhostps.com>
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, timeless wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Arun Ranganathan<arun@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > Hixie, I think a Base64 representation of the file resource may be
> > sufficient, particularly for the image use case (which is how it is used
> > already).  Can you flesh out why the new schema is a good idea?
> 
> so. I have folders with 100-1000mb of pictures in them. If I decide that 
> I want to upload them all (Picasa style), i'd expect it would take a 
> very long time to convert each file name into a base64 url.

This is exactly the use case I had in mind, yes. data: URLs are fine for 
testing and prototyping, but as a practical matter, they don't really 
scale to real-world needs. For example, imagine a user uploading a local 
video (~1GB) to YouTube, where the page wants to show the video in a 
<video> element as (or immediately before) the user is uploading it (e.g. 
so the user can set the times where ads should show). A data: URL is 
clearly not an option here, I think.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 03:30:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT