- From: <what@keepthebyte.ch>
- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 23:53:14 +0100
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 14:46:08 +1300, "Matthew Thomas" <mpt at myrealbox.com> said: > > Should UAs be able to restrict uploads based on the bit depth of > images? (For some purposes only 1-bit images are desired.) How about > based on whether images are animated or not? (Some forums may want > avatars to be non-animated only.) How about based on the number of > pages in a PDF or RTF document? (Job application forms may want resum?s > to be no more than /n/ pages.) How about based on the sample rate of > audio files? Or on the framerate of video files? At what point do you > say "okay, that's the server's job, not the client's", and why? > > (Keep in mind that any restriction done by the client will still have > to be done by the server as well, to guard against buggy or malicious > UAs.) True statements. The more information we add into the mark-up code - the more precise the UA can guide the user to choose and upload the content. Covering "all" use cases would be way to much - making an educated guess on witch use cases are widespread would be enough (and help mum and dad to enjoy using the browser = better usability) Another idea: how about a "compress" flag - the UA compresses (zip) the file/s before sending - that could reduce upload time dramatically and improve user experience. The document management system vendors would love this feature. Keep the byte. Cedric
Received on Tuesday, 28 December 2004 14:53:14 UTC