Re: HTML5 File

Hey all--I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this thread.
I'm a little short on bandwidth right now, and that's likely going to
get worse for at least a couple of weeks.

First of all, I think this discussion should include DAP [+CC].  DAP
folks, this discussion started at

My take is that I've gotten lots of useful feedback on FileWriter on
both webapps and DAP.  However, recently most of the FileWriter
discussion has been on webapps, mainly as asides on other topics, and
the last time I sent a request for comments to DAP it received no

I would like to see both specs be officially discussed on webapps.  I
think we really need input from all the browser companies in order to
make a solid API, and in order to produce something that everyone's
eager to implement.  If they won't come to DAP, then this part should
come to them.  I'd also appreciate it if DAP folks who've contributed
to the specs so far continued to be involved.  I don't know what the
logistics of that would be.  The specs are clearly within the charters
of both groups.  And of course several folks have been popping back
and forth between lists anyway.

I'm not really too bothered about the exact form of the discussion and
publication, as long as we get everyone involved.



On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Arun Ranganathan <> wrote:
> On 6/3/10 4:13 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 23:02 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> I don't know who makes these decisions, but I'd imagine the editor
> holds a certain amount of sway.
> Decisions of what is in scope for a WG are made by the members (i.e. you)
> when a WG is created. When DAP was created, people felt rather strongly
> (personally, I disagreed, I know that Arun had similar concerns) that adding
> deliverables to WebApps would be a bad idea as it already had many, and
> because there was already a lot of traffic on its list.
> To be clear, I was *very much in favor* of FileAPI-related items being added
> to WebApps, but was less enthusiastic about Widget-related items or the Web
> SQL Database item.  David Baron, Mozilla's Advisory Committee
> Representative, made this stance public in a blog post:
> I'll note that the current charter --
> --  uses the following language when
> discussing File API:
> " An API for representing file objects in web applications, as well as
> programmatically selecting them and accessing their data. This may include
> file writing and file system APIs. This replaces the File Upload
> specification."
> This language in my opinion certainly includes FileWriter and anything
> FileSystem related, and moving from DAP --> WebApps should NOT warrant a
> charter review.  This language was approved by all members.  Moving to
> file-related APIs to WebApps (from DAP) has the following advantages:
> 1. Wide implementor review.  My concern is that not ALL browser vendors are
> members of DAP; ALL browser vendors are members of WebApps.  Moreover, since
> a charter review/amendment doesn't seem necessary, given the inclusive
> language around file APIs, I think there is a strong case to be made for
> this work to proceed in WebApps.
> 2. Family of specifications living together.  Changes to FileAPI impace XHR
> (at least with the introduction of ArrayBuffers); Blob is useful in other
> areas, and FileWriter proposes a BlobBuilder.
> This was discussed publicly in the months leading up to DAP being chartered
> (including with involvement from Mozilla participants) but the eventual
> balance became the one we have today. I think (though I do not know for
> sure) that one factor in this was the fact that the File API which is so
> nicely alive today had, while DAP was being chartered, not been updated
> since 2006 and was still called the "File Upload API".
> This is true.  But, I see no impediment to changing this for the better,
> given the existing charter language on WebApps.  Do you, or does anyone that
> is a member of the DAP WG?  Likewise, does any member of the WebApps WG
> object strongly?
> -- A*

Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:22:16 UTC