- From: Antonio Olmo Titos <antonio@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:30:11 +0900
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, Denis <denis@w3.org>, Philippe <plh@w3.org>
On 17/12/15 Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > Oh, I misunderstood the GH issue - this still requires uploading the > file to a publicly-addressable webserver and then passing a url to > Echidna? > If this is the case, using tar files is *less* convenient than what we > had to do before, because there's an extra step of "make a tar file" > where before all you had to do was upload your folder of stuff. The > entire point of asking for tar file support was so we could curl an > entire folder of resources to Echidna *directly*, skipping the "upload > to a webserver" step. This does not help Bikeshed in any significant > way at the moment. :( If that is the case and there was a misunderstanding on my part, I apologise! I quickly reviewed the issue [1] & PR [2], and the minutes from our TPAC breakout session [3], and the comments there are sometimes ambiguous and contradictory. Some of those comments suggest "sending" the file directly instead of "uploading" to a server; but we also said that it "would still be a file URI". I think at least Denis, Philippe and I went for the latter interpretation, as we all agreed on the PR that was eventually merged. I'm sorry that I did not gather requirements for this clearly enough. Looking forward now. I filed a new issue to address this [4] and assigned myself to it. Denis, Philippe: do you see any obvious obstacles to having the API accept large files like that? If anyone has ideas about the best way to add that feature to the API, please share :) [1] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/230 [2] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/pull/241 [3] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-pub-minutes [4] https://github.com/w3c/echidna/issues/243 -- Antonio Olmo Titos web developer, W3C antonio@w3.org http://w3.org/People/Antonio +81 335162504
Received on Thursday, 17 December 2015 04:30:21 UTC