- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:34:45 +0100
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:23:20 +0100, Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> > wrote: >> Microsoft did. And nothing changed in well over a year. (They say so in >> a comment on the blog post.) > > Perhaps the buggy code was only sent to IE, and Firefox got more > reasonable code. If the firmware had working code for both Firefox and > the latest stable version of IE, that would explain the company's > reluctance to see a problem. Maybe, maybe not. > Another reason might be that this firmware only runs on old routers > and no firmware updates are being released for it, so few users would > run into the problem with trying to update firmware. What firmware was > this, exactly? I have no idea. It just indicates issues are out there. > Example: A site lets a user upload a file and write some comments > associated with that file. On the browser side, a new input element is > dynamically created with the name and id "Notes for > C:\fakepath\upload.txt". On the server side, the server receives > "upload.txt" and looks for "Notes for upload.txt" to match. It of > course is not there because the programmer had no idea that the > browser would be adding appending a fake path in JavaScript but not in > HTTP. I don't see how this example could work. Anyway, relying on .value to just return a filename is a bogus assumption anyway since lots of user agents out there are not doing that. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 09:34:45 UTC