On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Kinuko Yasuda <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > [Constructor] interface FormData { Blob toBlob (); void > >>> > append(DOMString > >>> > name, Blob value); void append(DOMString name, DOMString value); }; > >>> > Also it looks like BlobBuilder (in the draft dimich linked to) is > >>> > lacking a > >>> > means for the caller to set the type attribute of the blob being > built. > >>> > A couple ways that could be provided... > >>> > [Constructor] interface BlobBuilder { attribute DOMString endings; > >>> > attribute DOMString type; // option a > >>> > Blob getBlob (in DOMString type); // option b void append (in > DOMString > >>> > text) raises (FileException); void append (in Blob data); }; > >>> > >>> I don't feel strongly, but "option b" looks cleaner to me. Might want > >>> to make the argument optional though, and default to the empty string. > >> > >> Option b works for me and agreed it should be optional with empty being > >> the default value. > > > > I prefer option b as well. (Especially if there'll be a use case where > > users want to change the 'type' each time they call getBlob()) > > What will be the default type of Blob when it's not specified? > > The empty string. > > > In this generally agreed proposal, if we append a blob made by FormData > to > > another FormData, we will be getting a nested multipart data, right? > > Yes. Thanks for confirming. All sound good to me. > > / Jonas >
