W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > March 2000

flying pigs considered harmful

From: James P. Salsman <bovik@best.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:39:22 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200003030939.BAA27864@shell9.ba.best.com>
To: braden@endoframe.com
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, www-html@w3.org

> The only 
> way to obtain device upload does not even involve the INPUT tag 
> (on Windows' MSIE, the OBJECT tag is used with an insecure 
> "ActiveX" binary; on Netscape Navigator under Windows, the EMBED 
> tag is used with a similarly insecure arrangement where the user 
> must "Grant All" system privleges to the EMBEDed binary code.)  

Yes, well, one could probably use OBJECT/EMBED to make pigs fly if one
were so inclined and prepared to waive the relevant security precautions.
Such implementations are interesting in that they demonstrate the
availability of the technology, but the applicability of their syntax to a
general purpose mechanism for a specific need is low to nil. This
situation is by no means unique to device upload, nor is it a particularly
surprising outcome.

> This complex state of affairs need not be so.
> 
> If the W3C would just take a stand, and tell the browser vendors 
> that in order to be compliant with the W3C Recommendations, if 
> device upload is implemented then it should be available in a 
> certain way, then they would probably conform to stay compliant.

The W3C has defined conformance terms for HTML 4, CSS1, CSS2... And how
many browsers conform to date? I'm a little bit skeptical that having the
W3C stomp its feet would do a bit of good.
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 04:40:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:43 GMT