- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:34:33 -0700
- To: Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>
- Cc: Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>, Dmitry Titov <dimich@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> wrote: >>> > [Constructor] interface FormData { Blob toBlob (); void >>> > append(DOMString >>> > name, Blob value); void append(DOMString name, DOMString value); }; >>> > Also it looks like BlobBuilder (in the draft dimich linked to) is >>> > lacking a >>> > means for the caller to set the type attribute of the blob being built. >>> > A couple ways that could be provided... >>> > [Constructor] interface BlobBuilder { attribute DOMString endings; >>> > attribute DOMString type; // option a >>> > Blob getBlob (in DOMString type); // option b void append (in DOMString >>> > text) raises (FileException); void append (in Blob data); }; >>> >>> I don't feel strongly, but "option b" looks cleaner to me. Might want >>> to make the argument optional though, and default to the empty string. >> >> Option b works for me and agreed it should be optional with empty being >> the default value. > > I prefer option b as well. (Especially if there'll be a use case where > users want to change the 'type' each time they call getBlob()) > What will be the default type of Blob when it's not specified? The empty string. > In this generally agreed proposal, if we append a blob made by FormData to > another FormData, we will be getting a nested multipart data, right? Yes. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 00:35:20 UTC