- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 10:02:02 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Alfonso Martínez de Lizarrondo <amla70@gmail.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
2011/7/11 Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>: > On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 03:00:55 +0200, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com> > wrote: >> >> I was about to send a similar proposal. We'd prefer to add an optional >> argument to append that specifies the filename. This is the smallest change >> to >> implementations and doesn't require developers to understand the >> BlobBuilder in order to use FormData. Having to create another reference to >> a Blob and probably deal with managing a File and Blob both pointing to the >> same data seems >> unnecessarily involved when all we want is to get the filename into the >> FormData object. > > Isn't the smallest change just setting the file name to "blob" rather than > the empty string? I suspect setting the filename might come up elsewhere too > (e.g. file system API) so I'd rather not do it here. Additionally, what is the use case of being able to set the filename during a FormData submission? My perception was that the main use case was to not get an empty filename as many serverside implementations of multipart/form-data did not deal well with that. I so far have not heard a reason to believe that having the ability to specify a precise filename is a common use case, so it seems unnecessary to add syntax sugar for that. / Jonas
Received on Monday, 11 July 2011 17:03:00 UTC