W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [XHR2] Blobs, names and FormData

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:26:07 +0200
To: Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Webapps WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vxuilti664w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 18:21:39 +0200, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo  
<amla70@gmail.com> wrote:
> If a png screenshot (as provided by current Chrome in the paste event) is
> sent to the server and saved as "blob.bin" or "blob.blob", I doubt that  
> it will be sent back to the client with the correct mime type and I  
> don't know why the browser should try to sniff those contents instead of  
> providing a
> correct hint while uploading the data to the server.
>
> I don't really know a realistic situation where a page can generate a  
> Blob and don't know what kind of contents it has. It can be some text,  
> some html, some picture, the new APIs will allow to create new types of  
> contents that previously were out of scope for javascript, but in any of  
> those situations the script will know what kind of data it's dealing  
> with and what's the
> commonly expected extension for that content. So sending it in "the  
> correct way" seems to me like a logical step, supporting the FormData is  
> far more
> complex than just allowing to specify the filename so it would be a pity  
> to forget about this missing bit.

Are you suggesting the browser should perform sniffing and decide the  
extension based on that? What rules should it follow?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff

I'm not sure dragging all that complexity here is a good idea.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2011 16:26:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT