- From: Eduard Pascual <herenvardo@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 23:34:34 +0200
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > files[0] won't work in most legacy browsers. I've added an example of how > to grab the filename. Thanks. fakepath is less than ideal, but that at least makes it a bit less evil. Now good content authors have a tool for well, authoring good content. On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Alex Henrie wrote: > Then for however long we use HTML, we will always remember that we have > to work around fakepath because someone decided that compatibility with > a handful of badly designed pages in 2009 was more important than having > good design in 2090. Don't worry. Hopefully, far before that HTML will be so bloated that it will only be outputted by servers from some sane source format. Actually, there are many sites nowadays that do something like that via XSLT (either client- or server-processed) plus their custom XML dialect tailored to the site's needs. Oh! And most probably, by 2090 I'd expect all the pre-HTML5 browsers to have died off, so we may simply rely on .files[0] (if we are still here, of course). IMO, despite being extremelly ugly, fakepath is among the least evils of backwards compatibility. For example, I consider new browsers having to deal with stuff like <font> is far worse. I won't say I like it, actually, I'll keep saying it is ugly, but it isn't really that harmful. Oh, and who knows... maybe by the time we (or our children) make HTML6 or 7 all the content relying on paths has died off and it could got removed (unlikely, but there is still a bit of hope). Regards, Eduard Pascual
Received on Tuesday, 15 September 2009 14:34:34 UTC