On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, timeless wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Arun Ranganathan<arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > > Hixie, I think a Base64 representation of the file resource may be > > sufficient, particularly for the image use case (which is how it is used > > already). Can you flesh out why the new schema is a good idea? > > so. I have folders with 100-1000mb of pictures in them. If I decide that > I want to upload them all (Picasa style), i'd expect it would take a > very long time to convert each file name into a base64 url. This is exactly the use case I had in mind, yes. data: URLs are fine for testing and prototyping, but as a practical matter, they don't really scale to real-world needs. For example, imagine a user uploading a local video (~1GB) to YouTube, where the page wants to show the video in a <video> element as (or immediately before) the user is uploading it (e.g. so the user can set the times where ads should show). A data: URL is clearly not an option here, I think. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 19 June 2009 03:30:57 UTC