Re: New FileAPI Draft | was Re: FileAPI feedback

On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 01:10:31 +0200, Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Why make a new API for getting the contents of a file (local or otherwise)
>> when we already have one which is XHR?
>>
>
> XHR does not do local data. It also does not do raw file data very well.


I don't quite understand this comment. Isn't the point of these discussions
how to extend browsers and HTML? XHR was just extended to support cross-site
requests and new properties were added. Couldn't it be extended again to
support local files (through the "filedata:" url system) and as well to
support raw data?


>
>
>
>  What if FileList was just array of File objects where each File object is
>> just a URL in the format
>>
>> "filedata: uuid, filename"
>>
>> Then you can use that URL anywhere in HTML a URL is valid. script, img,
>> audio, video, css, AND XHR
>>
>
> I agree that we need this functionality:
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/thread.html#msg67
>
> I'm not sure if feeding it to XHR makes sense though. Especially if you
> just want to do a partial read there would be quite a bit of overhead.
>
>
>  That would mean you wouldn't be adding a new API to get the contents of a
>> file. If you want the contents just use XHR and use the URL from the File
>> in the FileList.
>>
>> You could add a few more functions to XHR like request.getAsDataURL(),
>> request.getAsTextInEncodiing(), etc. if need be if they are needed
>>
>
> It's an interesting idea, but overloading XMLHTtpRequest in this way does
> not seem like a good idea to me.
>
>
>
> --
> Anne van Kesteren
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>