- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:06:05 +0000
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Web APIs WG (public)" <public-webapi@w3.org>
Hi Mark, thanks a lot for your review. On Sep 21, 2006, at 15:18, Mark Baker wrote: > Editorial; > > - sec 1, "This interface" should be "This specification" > - sec 3, I'd suggest s/apparition/display/ Applied. > Substantive; > > - sec 3, regarding "On devices that have no file system, the > user-agent MAY still open a dialogue for data acquisition, for > instance an interface to a built-in camera", my concern is that the > file dialogue should be considered generic, not specific to any form > of data, so I don't want to give the impression that the device can > choose the data without user involvement. So I'd suggest "for > instance, a dialog which identifies a built-in camera and a > microphone". Agreed, I've made a change similar to your suggestion. > - sec 4, not that I care that much, but do we really need this > interface? Would an array not suffice? It can't do remove, of course, > but is that such a big deal? I'm not at all a big fan of all the FooList interfaces that show up here and there in W3C APIs, but I'm unsure as to how to handle this in a language-independent manner. What it maps to is binding-specific mind you, so in ES it would certainly have the behaviour of an array. I think that once we make progress on the "Bindings for ES" specification (Jonas?) we'll see more clearly on this issue. > - sec 4, I don't think "SHOULD" is appropriate there, for selecting > multiple files - MAY should be fine. Plus I think it's best specified > in sec 3. I've moved it to section 3 as I agree that it does make more sense there. However I do think that the SHOULD is justified here. If the platform on which the UA is running has a way of selecting multiple files, then it definitely must do it — the single file selection of UAs since the introduction of input type=file has been a genuine pain. The only reason it is a SHOULD and not a MUST is due to hypothetical platforms that may not have a FS (as mentioned two points above). I have half a mind to forget about that and make it a MUST. What do you think? > - sec 5, filesize - do we know the use cases for this? Yes, a non-negligible number of sites request that users not upload files bigger than X. This does not provide for server security, but it gives the page a chance to tell the user that a file is too big before it is submitted. > I don't think > the definition provided would be useful for much beyond scenarious > using some files in a file system. Well, that is the primary use case :) > What if a camera had an 8MB > buffer, but image sizes could be up to that size? Or similarly, what > about an audio stream? And is this meant to be a string? No, it's definitely not meant to be a string, good catch. > - sec 5, mediatype - do both "" and null values indicate that the > agent doesn't know the media type? And are we expecting this to be > just be the "foo/bar" value, or would parameters also be included? > Need some references too. Good questions, I've added an editorial note to that effect. Thanks! -- Robin Berjon Senior Research Scientist Expway, http://expway.com/
Received on Friday, 22 September 2006 11:43:36 UTC