Re: [FileAPI] Blob.URN?

What's the use case for specifying the Content-Disposition mime type.
The ones I've heard so far seems better solved using the FileWriter
[1] API.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html

/ Jonas

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln@google.com> wrote:
> There is more than just the mime type when dealing with the URLs.
> There at least two content headers of interest, Content-Type
> and Content-Disposition.
> Whatever mechanism involved should allow for both of these content headers
> to be set
> by the web application.
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN
>> >> > is
>> >> > not
>> >> > a property of Blob.  It seems like it would be useful to be able to
>> >> > load
>> >> > a
>> >> > slice of a File.  For example, this could be used by an application
>> >> > to
>> >> > fetch
>> >> > all of its subresources out of a single file.
>> >>
>> >> IIRC originally it was placed on File since Blobs do not have a
>> >> content type. However I think there is general agreement that it
>> >> should be moved to Blob.
>> >>
>> >> However it would be great to be able to assign a content type to a
>> >> Blob. Possibly slice() could take a optional argument.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Adding an optional parameter to slice() sounds attractive indeed.
>> > BlobBuilder [1] should probably also have such an optional argument.
>>
>> Indeed!
>>
>> / Jonas
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 March 2010 23:33:27 UTC