No UA supports it today. No UA is likely to support it anytime soon. Daniel
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:38 AM Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yet you restrict mime-types AND you support application/octet-stream? > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Daniel Cheng <dch...@google.com> wrote: > >> For reasons I've already mentioned, this isn't going to happen because >> there is no so-called "dumping ground". >> >> No one is going to risk their paste turning into thousands of lines of >> gibberish because they tried to stuff binary data in text/plain. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 8:23 AM Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> No, what I'm saying is that if you restrict mime types (or don't >>> explicitly prohibit such restriction), but require >>> application/octet-stream, that application/octet-stream becomes the >>> "undesirable mime-type" dumping ground. And that would be bad because that >>> makes it much harder for applications to deal with content. But if that's >>> the only way UAs are going to act, then applications will work around that >>> by using elaborate guessing code based on magic bytes, and perhaps some >>> application developers will use their own mime-type annotation pretended to >>> the octet-stream. >>> >>> If you inconvenience people, but don't make it impossible to work around >>> the inconvenience, then people will work around the inconvenience. It can't >>> be the intention to encourage them work around it. So you've got to either >>> not inconvenience them, or make working around impossible. >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Wez <w...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Florian, you keep referring to using application/octet-stream - that's >>>> not a format that all user agents support (although the spec says they >>>> should ;), nor is there any mention in the spec of what it means to place >>>> content on the clipboard in that format (given that platform native >>>> clipboards each have their own content-type annotations). >>>> >>>> So it sounds like you're saying we should also remove >>>> application/octet-stream as a mandatory format? >>>> >>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:55 Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's very simple. Applications need to know what's in the clipboard to >>>>> know what to do with it. There is also a vast variety of things that could >>>>> find itself in the clipboard in terms of formats, both formal and >>>>> informal. >>>>> Mime types are one of these things that applications would use to do that. >>>>> >>>>> If a UA where to restict what mime type you can put into the >>>>> clipboard, that forces the clipboard user to use application/octet-stream. >>>>> And in consequence, that forces any such-willing application to forgoe the >>>>> mime-type information from the OS'es clipboard API and figure out what's >>>>> in >>>>> it from the content. In turn this would give rise to another way to markup >>>>> mime-types in-line with the content. And once you've forced such ad-hoc >>>>> solutions to emerge for meddling with what people can put in the >>>>> clipboard, >>>>> you'll have no standing to put that geenie back in the bottle, again, >>>>> relevant XKCD quote omitted. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Wez <w...@google.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You've mentioned "resorting to application/octet-stream" several >>>>>> times in the context of this discussion, where AFAICT the spec actually >>>>>> only describes using it as a fall-back for cases of file references on >>>>>> the >>>>>> clipboard for which the user agent is unable to determine the file type. >>>>>> >>>>>> So IIUC you're suggesting that user agents should implement >>>>>> "application/octet-stream" (as is also mandated by the spec, albeit >>>>>> without >>>>>> a clear indication of what it means in this context) by putting the >>>>>> content >>>>>> on the clipboard as an un-typed file? >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, I'm unclear as to what the alternative is that you're >>>>>> proposing? >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:27 Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Surely you realize that if the specification where to state to only >>>>>>> "safely" expose data to the clipboard, this can only be interpreted to >>>>>>> deny >>>>>>> any formats but those a UA can interprete and deem well-formed. If such >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> thing where to be done, that would leave any user of the clipboard no >>>>>>> recourse but to resort to "application/octett-stream" and ignore any >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> metadata as the merry magic header guessing game gets underway. For all >>>>>>> you'd have achieved was to muddle any meaning of the mime-type and >>>>>>> forced >>>>>>> applications to work around an unenforceable restriction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Wez <w...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And, again, I don't see what that has to do with whether the spec >>>>>>>> mandates that user agents let apps place JPEG, PNG or GIF directly on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> local system clipboard. The spec doesn't currently mandate OpenEXR be >>>>>>>> supported, so it's currently up to individual user agents to decide >>>>>>>> whether >>>>>>>> they can support that format safely. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 14:16 Florian Bösch <pya...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Wez <w...@google.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think there's obvious value in support for arbitrary >>>>>>>>>> content-specific formats, but IMO the spec should at least give >>>>>>>>>> guidance on >>>>>>>>>> how to present the capability in a safe way. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which is exactly the core of my question. If you intend to make it >>>>>>>>> say, safe to put OpenEXR into the clipboard (as opposed to letting an >>>>>>>>> app >>>>>>>>> just put any bytes there), the UA has to understand OpenEXR. Since I >>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>> see how the UA can understand every conceivable format in existence >>>>>>>>> both >>>>>>>>> future and past, I don't see how that should work. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >