W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: New FileAPI Draft | was Re: FileAPI feedback

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:25:20 -0700
Message-ID: <4A8AF210.7050209@mozilla.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>>> There's lots of formats used on the web, I don't think it makes sense
>>> to add file-getters for all of them. JSON has gotten a lot of
>>> attention lately, does this mean we should add a getter that return a
>>> js-style escaped string?
>>>       
I don't really feel very strongly about keeping something equivalent to 
getAsBase64 (whatever the eventual model), but I don't think js-style 
escaped strings are an apples-to-apples comparison to Base64 encoded 
strings for binary content (but I suppose Atom and JSON bear comparison).
>>> We have getAsBinaryString, using that you can get the raw data and
>>> then base64 or escape encode it, or convert it to whatever format you
>>> want.
>>>       
This is true, but not as convenient to programmers.  I think you feel 
that Base64 is one convenience too many, and starts a slippery slope :-)
>> An IETF working group has published standards track proposals for a format
>> and a protocol that uses base 64 encoding. If this is not sufficient reason,
>> then I am sorry but you have an unduly high expectation. Let the 'js-style
>> escaped string' get a similar blessing and then they can bring it to W3C to
>> include them in browsers.
>>     
>
>
> shouldn't we also add a base64 encoding function on XMLHttpRequest?
> the SQL (or other database) API? On postMessage?
>   
Not necessarily (if we consider AtomPub uses cases).  But again, I *do* 
agree that getAsBinaryString is the bare minimum convenience.  I think 
getting stuff as Base64 is useful syntactic sugar, but can live without 
it.  Do the purveyors of public-facing APIs that use or extend AtomPub 
have strong opinons?

-- A*
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:26:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:33 GMT