- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:31:40 -0800
2009/12/10 Ian Fette (????????) <ifette at google.com>: >> I guess I'd be ok with changing the spec to allow more of the path to >> be exposed. However that would mean that there is a mismatch between >> what name is submitted and what name you'd get from >> input.files[n].name. >> > > I think that the notion of allowing more of the path to be exposed and > reconciling that with .name is where the problem lies, and would like to > figure out if we could resolve that. I think that there is a case to be made > for including the paths -- e.g. if I'm uploading photos to flickr, picasa, > or facebook, I may have already organized them locally, there's no reason > that I shouldn't be able to maintain that structure when I upload to the web > application. The question is then how that gets reconciled with > input.files[n].name -- I would think it preferable if .name also were > allowed to contain that extra information -- currently we say "The name of > the file. There are numerous file name variations on different systems; this > is merely the name of the file, without path information." [1]. I guess I > would propose that be changed to "The name of the file. There are numerous > file name variations on different systems; this is merely the name of the > file. If the user agent allows for files from multiple directories to be > selected and included in a single FileList, path information may be included > to distinguish between the files, provided that such path information SHOULD > NOT include information about any path components that are common to all of > the Files in the FileList." If we're going to expose a full or partial path, then I think we should do that separately from the .name property. I'd rather keep the .name strictly be the leaf name. / Jonas / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 22:31:40 UTC