- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:17:21 -0700
- To: Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>
- CC: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Sam Weinig wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com> wrote: >>> Just a few weeks ago >>> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html) >>> I >>> proposed a stripped down version of the File Upload spec (thinking it >>> defunct) that matched Mozilla's implementation sans the data accessors. >>> One reason for not including the data accessors was that we don't think >>> synchronous access to the disk is a good idea and browser. >>> >> >> Sam, >> >> I got that you don't think it's a good idea, but not why. Also, I >> don't understand the 'browser' at the end. Can you explain this? >> >> Please quote what you are replying to so to make it clear as to >> exactly what you're replying. IM lost. >> > > Sorry, the "and browser" at the end was a typo. I meant to say, "in the > browser". The reason synchronous access to the disk is a bad idea is > that if the operation takes too long, a big file, a slow network home > directory, or for whatever other reason, the browser hangs. It is the > same reason synchronous network access can be construed as a bad idea. > > I was replying to your request for implementors to give you feedback. I > am in favor of spec moving forward, but it needs an editor. I agree having the only available API be a synchronous one is bad. Having both sync and async access available seems like the way to go. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 03:20:34 UTC