- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:58:32 +0100
- To: "Dmitry Titov" <dimich@google.com>, "Michael Nordman" <michaeln@google.com>
- Cc: "Darin Fisher" <darin@chromium.org>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:40:36 +0100, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com>
wrote:
> This has been discussed before, not sure what the conclusion was (if any)
> http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06137.html
>
> <http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06345.html><snip>
>
> In order for the URN to be useful, it would have to have a mediaType
> associated with it, and then there's content-disposition to think
> about, which then wants a file name as well...boy, that's a lot of
> baggage. However, since these aren't really inherent properties of
> the Blob, just of the way you want the browser to view the Blob, it
> would seem natural to me do to something like this:
>
> interface Blob {
> ...
> DOMString getURN(in DOMString mediaType,
> [Optional] in DOMString contentDisposition,
> [Optional] in DOMString name);
> };
>
> </snip>
Wouldn't it be better to have a constructor for File. I.e.
File(Blob, name, type, contentdisposition)
or some such. (Maybe some of the attributes on File should be made
mutable, i.e. name and mime...)
Also, didn't we decide to change URN to URL? As far as I can tell that is
how Gecko is implementing it.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 08:59:13 UTC