All,
Maceij wrote:
[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
Were you referring to [3] above? I didn't actually realize that Apple
was proposing that as a v1 for the FileUpload spec. Apologies for
that, it was certainly not intended to be ignored.
Yes, [3] was our intended proposal for v1 of the file upload spec. I
don't recall hearing any objection to publishing that as v1.
Arun did not ever respond to that email thread, and your only comment
was "This sounds like a great idea to me."
1. Again, I apologize for embarking on a direction that wasn't what
Apple envisioned, but your intention to make [3] above a "v1" in lieu of
the a more expansive spec. wasn't clear to me. Also, I didn't respond
to the thread because Jonas' post affirming that it "... sounds like a
great idea..." was sufficient. Thus, I took the proposal as a key
component in a more expansive spec., but not as a v1 spec. in and of itself.
2. Posts to this listserv by various Apple engineers about the perils of
a synchronous I/O API have made good, cogent arguments. Moreover,
Maciej suggests that Apple *won't* implement a specification with such
APIs. I discussed this with Jonas; we're amenable to dropping these
from the specification, and thus, I no longer consider this a major
blocking issue in any way. Going forward, Mozilla may move developers
away from our own synchronous APIs provided we agree on something that
works in this specification, but that remains TBD.
3. Maciej, you state that you're in the process of posting to this
listserv what's wrong with the Blob approach [1]. It was, after all, a
strawperson for an asynchronous API, and thus I thought it worth
including in a v1 specification. Note that I started with only the
slice() method. I look forward to your commentary, since this will
allow me to better justify not considering it till a v2.
In retrospect, I'm glad I solicited commentary with the small amount of
spec. text that I did add, as opposed to my other modifications ;-) I
suppose this one goes back to the drawing board; in the long run, this
may be desirable anyway.
-- A*
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008OctDec/0118.html
