> Sorry about the delay, the real world intruded.
Likewise.
> > Where do names appear? It's designed by someone who assumes that given
> > an object you can get meta-information about its type from the OS
> > (which you can on sane OSes; see BeOS).
>
> BeOS is just one OS. Mozilla is supposed to be multi-platform and names
> are relevant on some platforms.
So? My point was that the thinking behind "accept" was not predicated on the
assumption that the file type is determined by the filename, as your mail
implied.
> > In 99.99% of cases, the file type will in fact not be changing any time
> > soon. Let's not call things "useless" when they are at worst slightly
> > unreliable.
>
> Oh, let's. If treating the common case were the only requirement then
> mozilla would have a lot fewer tests for null this and negative that.
Nice straw man. If a null check is neglected, the application crashes. What
goes wrong if the wrong content-type is sniffed, exactly? That's what we have
to consider when implementing any sniffing algorithm.
> I would think everyone would want mozilla to be a robust product. Given the
> possibility of virii and worms (off topic, I think it's possible to infect
> mozilla), I would be very paranoid, particularly when uploading.
Frankly, I fail to see why virii/worms would be an issue whn uploading;
further, I fail to see how content-type sniffing affects them being an issue.
Please be so kind as to explain the problem clearly instead of making cryptic
pronouncements.
> Also, "useless" was referring to opening a bunch of files just to see
> what's in them. Also (again), "accept" support seems to be optional so I'm
> not sure this is something worth pursuing at this time.
That s a separate issue entirely. The question on the table is what APIs the
network library and XPCOM should expose to consumers; how consumers use these
APIs is a separate matter.
In particular, stream objects in Mozilla do not have a type associated with
them. Perhaps this is what should really be fixed?
> Presumably headers are in a memory buffer so you just stuff that down the
> network socket first, then you read from the file stream and just start
> stuffing that into the socket. I don't see a problem.
I suggest you give the form submission code a read... Basically, we need the
type before we start reading the stream there.
Boris
P.S. Again, I am on the list, so no need to cc me on replies; especially if
your mail client generates messages with two different message IDs in the
process.
--
Isn't it interesting that the same people who laugh at
science fiction listen to weather forecasts and
economists?
-- Kelvin Throop III
