Re: [w3c/FileAPI] Readonly attributes without setters? (#126)

@annevk cc @andrew-aladev

> @andrew-aladev please familiarize yourself with https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/.



> Respect
> is the genuine consideration you have for someone (if only because of their status as participant in W3C, like yourself), and that you show by treating them in a polite and kind way.

2 cent (TL;DR): The term "respect" is frequently used on boards as some form of would-be "immutable" and objective standard though is not objective whatsoever.

"respect" is an _emotion_; a _feeling_. Human feelings can and do change between one moment to the next. If an individual relies on the _feeling_ that they are being "respected" by another individual they can easily be lead to their own demise if they _believe_ that the other individual has a "genuine consideration" for them. Only when the one-way door closes behind them will they learn that the individual only _appeared_ to "respect" them. "respect" is a _feeling_ that necessitates reliance on another individuals' state of mind and motivations, which they do not have to convey to you at all, though outwardly could be taken as "genuine consideration". If an individual entertains the concept of "respect" they MUST determine and supply that "respect" to and for _themselves_ OR be beholden to another individuals' emotional state. Otherwise, "respect" is irrelevant. When individuals refer to another not "respecting" them they are actually describing their own internal _emotional state_, their sensitivities; which again, is subject to change at any time, and is their own _feeling_. Individuals on boards can cite "rules" for "respect", though they _could be_ hypocrites, and use the non-observable term "respect" to stifle questions and answers that they do not _like_, while simultaneously promoting their own _beliefs_, "respectfully". Once an individual starts travelling along the rabbit proof fence of "respectful" and "disrespectful" _words_ they can find any number of words and terms that could be considered "offensive" or "disrespectful" - if they entertain such notions, and can be "offended" by mere words. Similarly, an individual could arbitrarily label any number of words and terms "offensive" in order to limit the context of the subject matter and topics, by labeling words "disrespectful" or "offensive", which are simply _emotions_. A couple examples of the issues with "respect" and what some individuals' label as "offensive"

Question: Is quoting Lou Reed's use of “colored” offensive or unwelcoming? https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/12046/is-quoting-lou-reeds-use-of-colored-offensive-or-unwelcoming/12051


Answer (deleted by admin.): https://run.plnkr.co/btzZjheUGlYgGBfW/


Question: What does Farrakhan mean by “false Jews”? https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/35178/what-does-farrakhan-mean-by-false-jews


Answer (deleted by mod): https://gist.github.com/guest271314/ba0a80bc96b57a36fb6f40e116b4cb8a


The first Q/A illustrates the issue with trying to create a pseudo standard for determining if certain words are "offensive". Objectively, if "colored" is "offensive" then "White", "Black" and "Jew", et al. must also be "offensive", as they are merely political classifications. "Black" could be considered even more "offensive" than "colored", as the term "Black" as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau attempts to arbitrarily create more than one "Black" "race" and the definition of "White" portends to create a fictional location termed "North Africa", which cannot be found on any map. Point out those discrepancies and an individual could be called being "disrespectful" or "offensive". 

The second Q/A illustrates that some individuals' questions might at first glance be impartial, though once an objective answer is provided the actual intent of trying to illicit one or more answers tailored to support their predisposed beliefs could be revealed. 

"respect" could have different meanings in different contexts. In a match or competition "respect" could translate into meaning legitimate fear of the opposing teams' capabilities, that is, out of _fear_ for what could occur to them if they perform they action which gives their opponents an advantage - not being "polite" or "kind" out of consideration for them.

No individual can make another individual _feel_ any particular way, or objectively declare what "respect" is. An individuals' _feelings_ are not observable, only their _actions_ are observable. Emotions and feelings have nothing to do with asking technical, historical, or any other questions, in any field of endeavor. Consider the above well whenever an individual or institution uses the term "respect": they could very well be trying to invoke an emotional state or reaction to distract from the actual practical and/or technical issue or facts of the subject matter.

> Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you’re really in favor of free speech, then you’re in favor of freedom of speech for precisely the views you despise. Otherwise, you’re not in favor of free speech.
> Noam Chomsky.

--

Relevant to setters for `Blob`, it is not clear what such functionality would mean. `Blob` are stored in memory. With adequate effort (reading the source code of FOSS browsers) an individual could locate where the `Blob` is stored in memory and change the contents of the file, see

- Where is Blob binary data stored? https://stackoverflow.com/q/38239361


- How to Write in file (user directory) using JavaScript? https://stackoverflow.com/q/36098129


and consider the "special" case of `URL.createObjectURL()` for `MediaSource()`, which is not consistent with the specification, see https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/209


> [1.2 Definitions](https://www.w3.org/TR/media-source/#definitions) 
>
>MediaSource object URL
>
> A MediaSource object URL is a unique Blob URI [FILE-API] created by createObjectURL(). It is used to attach a MediaSource object to an HTMLMediaElement.
> 
> These URLs are the same as a Blob URI [FILE-API], except that anything in the definition of that feature that refers to File and Blob objects is hereby extended to also apply to MediaSource objects.

(see also ; https://github.com/w3c/media-source/issues/211)

- If Blob URLs are immutable, how does Media Source Extension API use them to stream videos? https://stackoverflow.com/q/54613972


Thus, an individual could ask if `Blob`s are "immutable"? And further, if the `MediaSource()` specification is true and correct, can users get the underlying data pointed to by a `Blob URL` which was created by passing a `MediaSource` instance? The short answer is no, which can be quickly confirmed. Therefore, there are inconsistencies relevant to different specifications and `Blob` (`File`), `Blob URL`s; there are also different implementation at Chromium and Firefox for reading/processing uploaded directories, see How to upload and list directories at firefox and chrome/chromium using change and drop events https://stackoverflow.com/q/39664662. Perhaps the proposed https://github.com/WICG/native-file-system will lead to a uniform implementation of reading/writing files and directories.


The Filesystem API currently provides a means to read/write to the "same" `File` object. Or, Native Messaging could be used to directly change attributes of a file. Though that would necessarily _change_ the file, correct?

What are you trying to achieve by setting a different `name` or `lastModified` property of an existing `File` object? What is the requirement?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/FileAPI/issues/126#issuecomment-480935870