Hi !
Since most people agree that these features would be useful, and because
you have a deadline, you can leave it for a 1.1 version. I think the issue
is not whether is useful or not, but rather specifiying the details.
I have no problem with waiting (as long as it's not that much :) ).
On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/8/08, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Jonas Sicking [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Garrett Smith wrote:
Are there any other implementations working on File Upload? Changing
the
Just a few weeks ago (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html
) I proposed a stripped down version of the File Upload spec (thinking
it defunct) that matched Mozilla's implementation sans the data
accessors. One reason for not including the data accessors
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Sam Weinig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a few weeks ago
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html) I
proposed a stripped down version of the File Upload spec (thinking it
defunct) that matched Mozilla's implementation sans the
On Aug 11, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Sam Weinig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a few weeks ago
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2008JulSep/0186.html
) I
proposed a stripped down version of the File Upload spec (thinking it
Sorry, the and browser at the end was a typo. I meant to say,
in the
browser. The reason synchronous access to the disk is a bad idea
is that
if the operation takes too long, a big file, a slow network home
directory,
Then:
function readFile(file) {
// 1. Check the fileSize property.
