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

Re: File API Feedback

From: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:36:50 -0700
Message-ID: <78dc8440906191436k3f657fbfp432731a4cb895c26@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, timeless <timeless@gmail.com>, arun@mozilla.com, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 8:30 PM, Ian Hickson<ian@hixie.ch> 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?
>

<snip>...</snip>

>

> it would definitely be nice
> if you could display a preview of the file no matter how big the file
> was, but it seems like we can get very far without it.
>

What are the "URL length limitations imposed by user agents"?
A quick search does not show any hard limits outside of IE's ~2k
limit. Presumably
IE could be convinced to increase that for data URLs.

If the answer is 2k, then toDataURI is useless in practice and should be
dropped from the spec, even if we don't replace it with something else. If
the answer is 1GB, then at least it will be useful for the vast majority of
use cases (i.e. pictures, youtube-sized videos, etc).

Do we have any of this data for Gecko, Opera, WebKit?

Ojan
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 21:37:47 GMT

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