W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > October 2009

[whatwg] Is there any reason for the continued existence of enctype attribute at the form element

From: Mark Kaplun <mark@marksw.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:11:46 +0300
Message-ID: <4ACB6C42.7050503@marksw.com>
Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 10/5/09 12:48 PM, Mark Kaplun wrote:
>> I have only learned now that there is a "text/palin" option that I have
>> never heard of, so maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that there are
>> only two forms of form, a textual and a file upload. IMHO the browser
>> can inspect the form before submitting it and decide by itself what is
>> the correct encoding to use.
>
> You can use multipart/form-data with a form that doesn't include any 
> file uploads (and people do this).  Presumably they might have reasons 
> for this (e.g. they happen to have a sane multipart MIME parsing 
> library and don't want to deal with the url-encoding mess the 
> application/x-www-form-urlencoded option produces.
>
> -Boris
>   
Fair enough. Can the spec be changed in regard to the default encoding, 
and make it depend on the content of the form instead of being 
application/x-www-form-urlencoded, and then like today, the enctype 
attribute can be used to override the default encoding?

Mark.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
> Version: 8.5.420 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2414 - Release Date: 10/04/09 18:42:00
>
>   
Received on Tuesday, 6 October 2009 09:11:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:17 UTC