- From: James P. Salsman <bovik@best.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:39:22 -0800 (PST)
- To: braden@endoframe.com
- Cc: ietf@ietf.org, www-html@w3.org
> The only > way to obtain device upload does not even involve the INPUT tag > (on Windows' MSIE, the OBJECT tag is used with an insecure > "ActiveX" binary; on Netscape Navigator under Windows, the EMBED > tag is used with a similarly insecure arrangement where the user > must "Grant All" system privleges to the EMBEDed binary code.) Yes, well, one could probably use OBJECT/EMBED to make pigs fly if one were so inclined and prepared to waive the relevant security precautions. Such implementations are interesting in that they demonstrate the availability of the technology, but the applicability of their syntax to a general purpose mechanism for a specific need is low to nil. This situation is by no means unique to device upload, nor is it a particularly surprising outcome. > This complex state of affairs need not be so. > > If the W3C would just take a stand, and tell the browser vendors > that in order to be compliant with the W3C Recommendations, if > device upload is implemented then it should be available in a > certain way, then they would probably conform to stay compliant. The W3C has defined conformance terms for HTML 4, CSS1, CSS2... And how many browsers conform to date? I'm a little bit skeptical that having the W3C stomp its feet would do a bit of good.
Received on Friday, 3 March 2000 04:40:10 UTC