- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:20:53 +0100
Anne van Kesteren schrieb: > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:33:06 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst at gmx.ch> wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren schrieb: >>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:13:52 +0100, Markus Ernst <derernst at gmx.ch> >>> wrote: >>>> I have no idea how to handle such inconsistent behaviour on the >>>> server side (except adding extra code to flatten all uploaded >>>> directory structures before handling). I assume that HTTP upload >>>> should be kept simple, and more complex upload tasks should be >>>> handled with specialized applications, such as RadUpload[1]. >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.radinks.com >>> >>> I don't think we want to rely on the availability of Java on the end >>> user's platform (or the availability of any other plug-in for that >>> matter). >> >> I did not mean including it into HTML5 or an UA. Just leaving >> specialized upload tasks out of the standard, assuming that developers >> will work with applications that they think are useful for their tasks >> (and that rely on technologies they believe are avaliable at their >> target audience). > > And I mean that if it is important to application developers we should > make it available as a feature and not endorse some plug-in dependency. Ok. Jonas Sicking schrieb: > 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. I support this point. I assume that changing the name property would break backwards compatibility, as server-side applications (at least the ones I wrote) rely on the current behaviour. There is an other aspect in Ians proposal - avoiding file name conflicts, when e.g. /a/1.jpg and /b/1.jpg are uploaded. This can be handled by the UA, for example by displaying an error message, allowing to rename the conflicting files before upload.
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 02:20:53 UTC