- From: Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:11:51 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html@w3.org LIST" <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, 2012-02-21 16:00 -0800: > (BTW what happened to comment 11 on bug 11482? It was the closest thing we > had to data on this, but the comment seems to have been deleted somehow?) No idea what happened to it but note that all HTML WG bug comments get sent to the public-html-bugzilla list, so that comment is here: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-bugzilla/2011Oct/0513.html --- 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. --- I've asked the systems team to check and see if we can figure out why it's not in bugzilla. --Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike/+
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 06:12:07 UTC