- From: Markus Ernst <derernst@gmx.ch>
- Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 11:30:19 +0100
Jeremy Orlow schrieb: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com > 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. > > > I (and I think most of us) strongly agree. That's the whole point of > standardization. :-) > > Personally, I don't think the case Markus pointed out is at all a show > stopper. In the case of images, the server could easily recognize and > reconcile duplicates (by hashing them and looking for duplicate hashes > or something). If the image has been tweaked some in the mean time, the > EXIF data can help. And so on....this seems like the type of thing > clever developers can work around. > > But regardless.....I don't think you could argue that having _some_ path > information is worse than _none_, right? > > I also agree with Jonas that if some path information is added, it might > be better to create a new property (other than .name) for it. > > And, with or without that extra property, I think what Ian's suggesting > would be useful to users. Yes I see Anne's and your points. Anyway I don't see yet how to get _useful_ path information, as the same file can be posted as /a/b/1.jpg, and at the next occasion as 1.jpg or /b/1.jpg, just based on where in the upload dialog you did make the start point. Relying on information contained in the uploaded file does not seem to make sense to me, as you might want to upload a new file with the same name in order to replace the old one.
Received on Friday, 11 December 2009 02:30:19 UTC