W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Is it possible to paste an image into a form?

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002 11:44:25 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200210261044.g9QAiPc03727@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

> 
> 
> Is it possible to paste an image into a form?

The file upload mechanism supports it at the protocol level.  I doubt that
any browser implements it at the user interface level.

> The simplest nearly succesful method I have found is in ie6 right click 
> on image, select properties, highlight URI, copy, paste into form.

That doesn't submit the image, only a link to it.  I presume that
multipart/form-data would also permit that, although I doubt that any
server actually supports the MIME features used.  There isn't a form
control that accepts a reference.  (It might be worth checking xforms -
any extension to forms is likely to have to come through that route, if
not done as a proprietory, commercial, extension.)

People abusing HTML## to emulate drag and drop in a native Windows interface
would probably only support images that are part of the page and would
track them using scripting.

Incidentally, whilst being able to access the URL of the image makes sense
if you take a web philosophy view that an img element is really a funny 
sort of link, I suspect the commercial pressures on browser developers are
towards removing such features, as they allow the "user experience" to be
deconstructed, and even the image to be ripped off for use in another
web page++.

> our current feedback beta http://www.peepo.com/alfy/feedback.html lets 
> users paint an image, and send it in with a click.

That is covered by the file upload protocol.

> copy and paste would suit many users.

There is almost certainly very little commercial demand for this, as
forms are normally used to allow one to de-skill, or completely remove
the human element at the server side, whereas interpreting pictures still
requires human skills (people who upload photographs to photo libraries,
or images for processing and return, normally have them as files, so can
use file upload explicitly).  At a guess, it would make more sense for
a service provider to provide access with NetMeeting, etc., for users
that needed to sketch things, as, I would guess, such users need to be
talked through a procedure, not fill in a form offline.

Note that there is no discrimination against here, even if there is a lack
of discrimination in favour.

## HTML was used loosely here, as scripting languages and browser object
models are not part of HTML proper.

++ One of the concerns I have about what you seem to be trying to do in
other areas is that you are trying to access URLs that the web page designer
would rather remain opaque - people with multimedia contents usually have
it as a teaser for the web page that "embeds" it, rather than because they
want to provide that content.  Long term, you might be better off trying
to work with the owners of the digital rights to try and find a way of
providing the resources to your community in a way that doesn't make them
accessible to those who would be able to respond to the advertising content
of pages; I'm thinking of the same sort of principle that means that 
talking books for the blind can't be played on normal tape recorders.
(A counter example is the level of abuse of disabled only parking 
spaces.)

If you are deep linking at the moment, you are probably getting away with
it because the rights owners don't think that the general public will
use your site to bypass theirs.
Received on Saturday, 26 October 2002 06:45:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:07 GMT