Maciej,
My first question would be:
Why did you ignore Apple's proposal to start with a minimal common
interface (which most people seemed to like) and instead wrote a draft
that is the union of all things in Robin's original spec, all things
that Mozilla happened to implement, and a bunch of the things that
Google propose?
FWIW, the Berjon spec. actually matches implementation in Mozilla,
modulo a few differences, which I suppose the "union" reveals. And I
*certainly* did not mean to willfully ignore input from anybody. I
apologize if this is the impression my current draft gives, and hope to
fix that very soon. But, looking back on correspondence from you, I
find one that says you're ok with a WD being published but that you
think that in a v1 WD, the I/O could be removed completely [1]. Sam
Weinig voiced Apple's caveats which I responded to on public-webapps[2]
wondering whether these caveats should block at least a WD publication
[2], but these were really points about synchronous calls in general.
Going further back in time, Sam Weinig proposed standardizing a way to
use XHR to send files [3], *without* specific ways to get the contents
of files, leaving room for Blob and other stuff in nsIDOMFile (we can
probably send Blobs or files). Nothing in the editor's draft precludes
that! Also Sam's email refers to FileHTMLInputElement which exists in
this draft as well (named HTMLFileInputElement).
I can give specific technical comments on the things that I think are
wrong with this draft,
*Please do.*. This editor's draft is very rough, and doesn't reflect
"fait accompli" thinking. If you think it too much of a union, maybe I
should go back and start with a more basic v1, rather than include
directions we may want to go in anyway? In another email, you suggest
Apple thinks direct I/O should be added later[4], maybe along the lines
of Blob, which is why I went with work in progress -- to add features we
may want to evolve *anyway.* Perhaps we can have the definitive
discussion on synchronous vs. asynchronous (and whether a spec. should
allow both) and move on. I don't think anyone at Mozilla holds
entrenched views here. I'm pretty optimistic that we can hash this out
soon, and we should be able to push this spec. out sooner rather than
later. It's been stagnant for a long-ish time :-)
-- A*
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-webapps/2008OctDec/0010.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0047.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0387.html
