- From: James P. Salsman <bovik@best.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 11:32:53 -0800 (PST)
- To: Steven.Pemberton@cwi.nl
- Cc: ietf@ietf.org, www-html@w3.org
Dear Dr. Pemberton, Thanks for your message: > There is nothing in HTML 4 that excludes any platform. > Just look at Opera, which is being implemented on BeOs, Epoc, Linux, > Mac Os, OS/2 and Windows. Device upload -- of any kind -- has not yet been implemented in Opera. You know that the CTO of Opera software has said they will wait for a W3C Recommendation (or Working Draft) on device upload. Opera, even on Windows, will not interpret MSIE OBJECT or Netscape EMBED tags which are used for microphone upload on those browsers under Windows. There is simply no browser on Mac or Linux (other than my experimental build of pre-gecko Mozilla) which is capable of even microphone upload. > If you had listened to the comments to your proposal when you submitted > it, you could have corrected it, and it would be a non-issue. Since 1997, there have been eight revisions, incorporating the useful suggestions from anyone who cared to review and comment on the draft. The basic idea and method remained the same throughout; the significant changes mostly concerned the names of devices. > In your case we pointed out there are fundamental flaws in your > approach, and indicated how you could fix them. I am sure we both want to resolve this. Would you please list all the flaws of which you are aware -- with as little or as much detail as you have time for -- along with, when available, how they could be fixed? I promise you I will devote my efforts to your comments until you are satisfied that they are resolved, but I do need your help to understand which issues you consider flaws. I will start by addressing the question of whether ACCEPT alone is sufficient for device upload, when used with the INPUT TYPE=FILE element. The problem occurs when an image is requested on a system with both a camera and a scanner. Having a DEVICE attribute allows for the selection of a default, which is reasonable because some conferencing applications might always expect camera input whereas OCR applications would usually expect scanner input. And, as others have pointed out, in compressed media the MAXLENGTH limitation is not as practical as the MAXTIME limitation, in the case where an upload needs to be restricted in size. Does anyone think that this justification is inadequate? Cheers, James
Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2000 14:33:30 UTC