- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 23:28:09 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Evan Jones <evanj@csail.mit.edu>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
On 2012-07-09 23:01, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 3 May 2012, Evan Jones wrote: >> On May 3, 2012, at 17:09 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> Yes. I think we should define multipart/form-data directly in HTML and >>> thereby obsolete http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388 as it is outdated >>> and not maintained. >> >> Right; that would be ideal. Despite the fact that HTML5 references that >> RFC, browsers don't really follow it. >> >> I would be interested in trying to help with this, but again I would >> certainly need some guidance from people who know more about the >> vagaries of how the various browsers encode their form parameters / >> uploaded file names, and why things got that way. It probably would not >> be helpful for me to try to draft an update to the spec without getting >> the right implementers on board. > > If this is still something for which you have some time available, then > the starting point for anything like this would be test cases, lots and > lots of test cases. In this case, it would have to be something like a > server that echoes the precise bytes sent by the client, for a huge > variety of different setups: > > - various submission encodings > - various form field names and types > - various file submission filenames > > ...etc. > > I'd be happy to advise if this is something that still interests you. I agree with the methodology. However I would suggest to simply revise RFC 2388. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 21:28:43 UTC