On 7/20/10 8:08 PM, Tim Starling wrote: > The Firefogg chunking > protocol itself is poorly thought-out and buggy, it's not the sort of > thing you'd want to use by choice, with a non-Firefogg client.
What in your view would a better version look like? The PLupload protocol seems quite similar. I might be missing some subtle difference. > I'd still be > more comfortable promoting better-studied client-side extensions, if > we have to promote a client-side extension at all. I don't think we should be relying on extensions per se. Firefogg does do some neat things nothing else does, like converting video formats. But it's never going to be installed by a larger percentage of our users. As far as making uploads generally easier, PLupload's approach is way more generic since it abstracts away the "helper" technologies. It will work out of the box for maybe >99% of the web and provides a path to eventually transitioning to pure JS solutions. It's a really interesting approach and the design looks very clean. I wish I'd known about it before I started this project. That said, it went public in early 2010, and a quick visit to its forums will show that it's not yet bug-free software either. Anyway, thanks for the URL. We've gone the free software purist route with our uploader, but we may yet learn something from PLuploader or incorporate some of what it does. -- Neil Kandalgaonkar |) <ne...@wikimedia.org> _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
