- From: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 19:48:01 +0200
- To: Daniel Cheng <dcheng@google.com>
- Cc: Wez <wez@google.com>, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen <hsteen@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOK8ODgp-AZAwCdJ8xH2oObcLFx815gXS+3P1rTuMi+GvFT94g@mail.gmail.com>
I'm sure you're aware that you can encode any binary blob as UTF-8 text/plain. If you don't support application/octet-stream, then that just becomes the "dumping ground". On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Cheng <dcheng@google.com> wrote: > No UA supports it today. No UA is likely to support it anytime soon. > > Daniel > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:38 AM Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yet you restrict mime-types AND you support application/octet-stream? >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Daniel Cheng <dcheng@google.com> wrote: >> >>> For reasons I've already mentioned, this isn't going to happen because >>> there is no so-called "dumping ground". >>> >>> No one is going to risk their paste turning into thousands of lines of >>> gibberish because they tried to stuff binary data in text/plain. >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:23 AM Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> No, what I'm saying is that if you restrict mime types (or don't >>>> explicitly prohibit such restriction), but require >>>> application/octet-stream, that application/octet-stream becomes the >>>> "undesirable mime-type" dumping ground. And that would be bad because that >>>> makes it much harder for applications to deal with content. But if that's >>>> the only way UAs are going to act, then applications will work around that >>>> by using elaborate guessing code based on magic bytes, and perhaps some >>>> application developers will use their own mime-type annotation pretended to >>>> the octet-stream. >>>> >>>> If you inconvenience people, but don't make it impossible to work >>>> around the inconvenience, then people will work around the inconvenience. >>>> It can't be the intention to encourage them work around it. So you've got >>>> to either not inconvenience them, or make working around impossible. >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Wez <wez@google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Florian, you keep referring to using application/octet-stream - that's >>>>> not a format that all user agents support (although the spec says they >>>>> should ;), nor is there any mention in the spec of what it means to place >>>>> content on the clipboard in that format (given that platform native >>>>> clipboards each have their own content-type annotations). >>>>> >>>>> So it sounds like you're saying we should also remove >>>>> application/octet-stream as a mandatory format? >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:55 Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It's very simple. Applications need to know what's in the clipboard >>>>>> to know what to do with it. There is also a vast variety of things that >>>>>> could find itself in the clipboard in terms of formats, both formal and >>>>>> informal. Mime types are one of these things that applications would use to >>>>>> do that. >>>>>> >>>>>> If a UA where to restict what mime type you can put into the >>>>>> clipboard, that forces the clipboard user to use application/octet-stream. >>>>>> And in consequence, that forces any such-willing application to forgoe the >>>>>> mime-type information from the OS'es clipboard API and figure out what's in >>>>>> it from the content. In turn this would give rise to another way to markup >>>>>> mime-types in-line with the content. And once you've forced such ad-hoc >>>>>> solutions to emerge for meddling with what people can put in the clipboard, >>>>>> you'll have no standing to put that geenie back in the bottle, again, >>>>>> relevant XKCD quote omitted. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Wez <wez@google.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> You've mentioned "resorting to application/octet-stream" several >>>>>>> times in the context of this discussion, where AFAICT the spec actually >>>>>>> only describes using it as a fall-back for cases of file references on the >>>>>>> clipboard for which the user agent is unable to determine the file type. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So IIUC you're suggesting that user agents should implement >>>>>>> "application/octet-stream" (as is also mandated by the spec, albeit without >>>>>>> a clear indication of what it means in this context) by putting the content >>>>>>> on the clipboard as an un-typed file? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Again, I'm unclear as to what the alternative is that you're >>>>>>> proposing? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:27 Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Surely you realize that if the specification where to state to only >>>>>>>> "safely" expose data to the clipboard, this can only be interpreted to deny >>>>>>>> any formats but those a UA can interprete and deem well-formed. If such a >>>>>>>> thing where to be done, that would leave any user of the clipboard no >>>>>>>> recourse but to resort to "application/octett-stream" and ignore any other >>>>>>>> metadata as the merry magic header guessing game gets underway. For all >>>>>>>> you'd have achieved was to muddle any meaning of the mime-type and forced >>>>>>>> applications to work around an unenforceable restriction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Wez <wez@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And, again, I don't see what that has to do with whether the spec >>>>>>>>> mandates that user agents let apps place JPEG, PNG or GIF directly on the >>>>>>>>> local system clipboard. The spec doesn't currently mandate OpenEXR be >>>>>>>>> supported, so it's currently up to individual user agents to decide whether >>>>>>>>> they can support that format safely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 14:16 Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Wez <wez@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I think there's obvious value in support for arbitrary >>>>>>>>>>> content-specific formats, but IMO the spec should at least give guidance on >>>>>>>>>>> how to present the capability in a safe way. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Which is exactly the core of my question. If you intend to make >>>>>>>>>> it say, safe to put OpenEXR into the clipboard (as opposed to letting an >>>>>>>>>> app just put any bytes there), the UA has to understand OpenEXR. Since I >>>>>>>>>> don't see how the UA can understand every conceivable format in existence >>>>>>>>>> both future and past, I don't see how that should work. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
Received on Thursday, 25 June 2015 17:48:30 UTC