W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2010

Re: FormData and BlobBuilder - duplication of functionality?

From: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 14:24:53 -0700
Message-ID: <y2lfa2eab051004141424h7d1333bdxea1f9aa9add96058@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: Dmitry Titov <dimich@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Good question. Let me ask you one. What value should you use for the
> >> > content-type header? That value needs to contain the boundary string.
> >> > You
> >> > need to know that to xhr.send the data in a way that looks like a form
> >> > submission. Just sending the blob will be "off by one" and the server
> >> > side
> >> > won't understand it.
> >>
> >> There seems to be general agreement (based on various discussions here
> >> and on whatwg) that the .type property should be moved to the Blob
> >> interface. So Blobs will have a content-type. So this problem should
> >> be taken care of.
> >>
> >> / Jonas
> >
> > Yes indeed!
> > So are we saying that FormData.toBlob() produces a blob representing the
> > encoded
> > results and having a .type property of the form...
> > multipart/form-data; boundary=xxxxxxx
>
> In the words of Samuel L Jackson: Correctamondo
>
> ;)
>
> > [Constructor] interface FormData { Blob toBlob (); void append(DOMString
> > name, Blob value); void append(DOMString name, DOMString value); };
> > Also it looks like BlobBuilder (in the draft dimich linked to) is lacking
> a
> > means for the caller to set the type attribute of the blob being built.
> > A couple ways that could be provided...
> > [Constructor] interface BlobBuilder { attribute DOMString endings;
> > attribute DOMString type; // option a
> > Blob getBlob (in DOMString type); // option b void append (in DOMString
> > text) raises (FileException); void append (in Blob data); };
>
> I don't feel strongly, but "option b" looks cleaner to me. Might want
> to make the argument optional though, and default to the empty string.
>

Option b works for me and agreed it should be optional with empty being the
default value.


>
> / Jonas
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 2010 21:25:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:38 GMT