- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 00:38:19 +0000
Agreed with Glenn, narrowing the semantic solves this problem neatly: * filename="" attribute - what to name the file if saved by the user (by whatever means) * existing rel="enclosure" spec - download the link when clicked/activated. So the author can choose to do one, or the other, or both. Clean, simple, orthogonal. Tantek -----Original Message----- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> Sender: whatwg-bounces at lists.whatwg.org Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:43:45 To: Jonas Sicking<jonas at sicking.cc> Cc: whatwg<whatwg at whatwg.org>; Darin Fisher<darin at chromium.org>; <ifette at google.com> Subject: Re: [whatwg] a rel=attachment 2011/7/15 Jonas Sicking <jonas at sicking.cc> > It definitely is an interesting usecase that Glenn brought up about > being able to specify a save-as name without otherwise modifying the > behavior of a reference. However that seems like a much more rare > usecase and so not the one we should optimize for. > Bear in mind that "optimize for" doesn't mean "support at all"; if download=filename is used, it seems unlikely that there will ever be *any* client-side way to supply the filename without implying attachment, which is a very different thing than "not optimizing for it". I don't feel strongly enough about this to press it further, but <a href=ugly download filename=pretty> also seems fairly clean, and avoids combining parameters that really are orthogonal to one another. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 15 July 2011 17:38:19 UTC