Re: ISSUE-197: accept-file-ext - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals

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