What's the use case for specifying the Content-Disposition mime type. The ones I've heard so far seems better solved using the FileWriter [1] API.
[1] http://dev.w3.org/2009/dap/file-system/file-writer.html / Jonas On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Michael Nordman <[email protected]> wrote: > There is more than just the mime type when dealing with the URLs. > There at least two content headers of interest, Content-Type > and Content-Disposition. > Whatever mechanism involved should allow for both of these content headers > to be set > by the web application. > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN >> >> > is >> >> > not >> >> > a property of Blob. It seems like it would be useful to be able to >> >> > load >> >> > a >> >> > slice of a File. For example, this could be used by an application >> >> > to >> >> > fetch >> >> > all of its subresources out of a single file. >> >> >> >> IIRC originally it was placed on File since Blobs do not have a >> >> content type. However I think there is general agreement that it >> >> should be moved to Blob. >> >> >> >> However it would be great to be able to assign a content type to a >> >> Blob. Possibly slice() could take a optional argument. >> >> >> > >> > Adding an optional parameter to slice() sounds attractive indeed. >> > BlobBuilder [1] should probably also have such an optional argument. >> >> Indeed! >> >> / Jonas >> > >
