- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:15:33 +0100
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:07:39 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky at mit.edu> wrote: > Sure it is. You just need a browser that'll allow you to do a firmware > upgrade to fix it. Which means that if one gets such an upgrade shipped > before all browsers stop sending paths, things seem to be ok. I agree > they're not as happy as they could be, but they're ok. In addition, is > the expected lifetime of the affected device comparable to the expected > time it takes to deploy the new behavior in browsers? If so, it's worth > it to contact the device maker and ask them to fix things in their next > model instead of working around them. Microsoft did. And nothing changed in well over a year. (They say so in a comment on the blog post.) > As far as the "significant number of sites" above... I wonder whether > there's UA sniffing going on here that causes some of these to assume > certain things about IE only. We've certainly seen quite a number of > issues along those lines: we fix a bug, and discover that sites had > written special browser-specific code taking advantage of that bug. Opera was the first doing this and we hit a few issues as well so we decided to go with a simple prefix (C:\fake_path\ changed to C:\fakepath\ now per discussion with Microsoft). It looks a bit ugly, but it's not at all the issue that same make it out to be I think. (E.g. the initial email claimed this inconsistency between the DOM and HTTP would cause issues for Web application developers...) Furthermore, once we get interoperable support for <input type=file multiple> and the fileList proposal starts moving we can provide cleaner access directly to the file name there. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 07:15:33 UTC