W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > October 2011

[Bug 11482] Requiring MIME types like application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document in order to allow a .docx file to be uploaded is far too technical for the layman. On the other hand it is equally impractical for web developers to keep an

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:51:41 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1REqbN-00051V-1s@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #11 from Sharon [MSFT] <sharco@microsoft.com> 2011-10-14 22:51:38 UTC ---
In reply to comment #5 – I agree that there are some interesting use cases for
image/*, video/* and audio/* strings.  I’m not proposing removing those,
however, we believe there are also good use cases for file extensions which are
not covered by the existing options.  

Here is one specific example. A web developer who wants the user to upload a
.csv file. The mime type for csv files is “application/vnd.ms-excel”.  If you
use this mime type in Chrome today you get only .xls file and in IE10 today you
get .csv, .slk, .xla, .xld, .xlk, .xll, .xlm, .xls, .xlt and .xlw.  Neither of
these are really what the developer wanted.  

In reply to comment #9 – Section 12 of the spec already has some mentions of
file extensions.  Also the purpose of the accept attribute is to give the
browser hints for how to request files from the OS.  This seems like a logical
place to use an OS concept even if it’s not known to the web platform.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 14 October 2011 22:51:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:02:06 UTC