Glenn Maynard wrote:
I'm interested in the same from Mozilla side: what are the real issues
that you think are unsolvable, or do you just think the underlying use
cases aren't compelling enough for the work required?
Speaking for myself, not for all Mozillans here, I find the use-cases
Eric U
> -Original Message-
> From: Olli Pettay [mailto:olli.pet...@helsinki.fi]
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 3:48 AM
> To: SULLIVAN, BRYAN L
> Cc: Maciej Stachowiak; Glenn Maynard; Eric U; public-webapps@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System
On 09/26/2012 01:32 AM, SULLIVAN, BRYAN L wrote:
*From:*Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:59 PM
*To:* Glenn Maynard
*Cc:* Eric U; o...@pettay.fi; public-webapps@w3.org
*Subject:* Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?
Hi
Asking about use cases that can be served by a filesystem API, but not
by IDB, is reasonable [and I'll respond to it below], but it misses a
lot of the point. The users I've talked to like the FS API because
it's a simple interface that everyone already understands, that's
powerful enough to handl
From: Maciej Stachowiak [mailto:m...@apple.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 2:59 PM
To: Glenn Maynard
Cc: Eric U; o...@pettay.fi; public-webapps@w3.org
Subject: Re: Moving File API: Directories and System API to Note track?
Hi Glenn,
I read over your points. But I don't think they
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> I read over your points. But I don't think they would change Apple's
> calculation about exposing an API to the real user filesystem in Safari,
> particularly as specified. I do think that my more minimal API might also
> be a better fit
Hi Glenn,
I read over your points. But I don't think they would change Apple's
calculation about exposing an API to the real user filesystem in Safari,
particularly as specified. I do think that my more minimal API might also be a
better fit for the "real filesystem" use case, as it removes a
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, James Graham wrote:
> Indeed. We are not enthusiastic about implementing an API that has to
> traverse directory trees as this has significant technical challenges, or
> may expose user's path names, as this has security implications. Also AIUI
> this API is not a
On Sep 25, 2012, at 10:20 AM, James Graham wrote:
>
> In addition, this would be the fourth storage API that we have tried to
> introduce to the platform in 5 years (localStorage, WebSQL, IndexedDB being
> the other three), and the fifth in total. Of the four APIs excluding this
> one, one h
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Brendan Eich wrote:
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
And two of the interfaces are generic and reusable in other contexts.
Nice, and DOMRequest predates yours -- should it
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
And two of the interfaces are generic and reusable in other contexts.
Nice, and DOMRequest predates yours -- should it be done separately since (I
believe) it is
On Sep 22, 2012, at 9:35 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>>
>>> And two of the interfaces are generic and reusable in other contexts.
>>
>> Nice, and DOMRequest predates yours -- should it be done separately since (I
>> believe) it is bei
On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Eric U wrote:
> While I don't see any other browsers showing interest in implementing
> the FileSystem API as currently specced,
Just for the record, Blackberry, Tizen/EFL and Netfront seem to have some
support of FileSystem API.
EFL has also uploaded a new File
On Sep 22, 2012, at 8:18 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
>
>> And two of the interfaces are generic and reusable in other contexts.
>
> Nice, and DOMRequest predates yours -- should it be done separately since (I
> believe) it is being used by other proposals unrelated to FileSystem-like
> ones?
>
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
For what it's worth, I put together a draft for what an API would look
like that has basically the same feature set as the current FileSystem
API, but based on DeviceStorage. It's a much smaller API that the
current Fi
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I put together a draft for what an API would look
> like that has basically the same feature set as the current FileSystem
> API, but based on DeviceStorage. It's a much smaller API that the
> current FileSystem drafts,
What does getMetadata a synchronously return?
I think this API as written is still a fair bit more complex than needed for
the sandboxed storage use case. It does seem simpler than Filesystem API.
Regards,
Maciej
On Sep 21, 2012, at 10:10 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> My personal objections (ones that I think are shared by at least some other
> Safari folks):
>
> - It's way too complicated. (As one crude metric, I count 22 interfaces; and
> yes, I know many of those are callback interfaces or sync
My personal objections (ones that I think are shared by at least some other
Safari folks):
- It's way too complicated. (As one crude metric, I count 22 interfaces; and
yes, I know many of those are callback interfaces or sync versions of
interfaces; it still seems overengineered).
- I see valu
I like the idea of offering asynchronous listing of files in . But I think Filesystem API is overkill for this use case.
Regards,
Maciej
On Sep 21, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> No comment on the value of DirectoryEntry for enabling asynchronous listing
> of files in ?
>
> -Darin
>
While I don't see any other browsers showing interest in implementing
the FileSystem API as currently specced, I do see Firefox coming
around to the belief that a filesystem-style API is a good thing,
hence their DeviceStorage API. Rather than scrap the API that we've
put 2 years of discussion and
Or.. drag-n-drop receipt of a folder or set of folders.
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> No comment on the value of DirectoryEntry for enabling asynchronous
> listing of files in ?
>
> -Darin
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 1:14 AM, James Graham wrote:
> On 09/20/2012 11:45 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> File path information is already exposed via .
>>
>> "File names may contain partial paths."
>> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/**web-apps/current-work/**
>> multipage/states-of-the-type-**attribut
No comment on the value of DirectoryEntry for enabling asynchronous listing
of files in ?
-Darin
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I don't see an indication of any major browser but Chrome planning to
> implement this and expose it to the Web.
>
> - Maciej
>
On 09/20/2012 11:45 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
File path information is already exposed via .
"File names may contain partial paths."
http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/states-of-the-type-attribute.html#concept-input-type-file-selected
I couldn't get any actual browser t
+1
I don't see an indication of any major browser but Chrome planning to implement
this and expose it to the Web.
- Maciej
On Sep 18, 2012, at 4:04 AM, Olli Pettay wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API
> from Recommendation trac
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:50 PM, James Graham wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Adam Barth wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, James Graham wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>>>
Olli wrote:
> I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directo
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:50 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Adam Barth wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, James Graham wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
Olli wrote:
> I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
> Syst
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Adam Barth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, James Graham wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
Olli wrote:
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
System API from Recommendation track to Note.
Sounds good to me.
Indeed.
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, James Graham wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
>> Olli wrote:
>>> I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
>>> System API from Recommendation track to Note.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> Indeed. We are not enthusiastic abou
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Edward O'Connor wrote:
Hi,
Olli wrote:
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
System API from Recommendation track to Note.
Sounds good to me.
Indeed. We are not enthusiastic about implementing an API that has to
traverse directory trees as
Hi,
Olli wrote:
> I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
> System API from Recommendation track to Note.
Sounds good to me.
Ted
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Darin Fisher wrote:
>
> Note: The {File,Directory}Entry types are also separately useful for
> multi-file input and drag-n-drop applications:
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/DragAndDropEntries
...in Chrome. This was the recent topic of:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/
Note: The {File,Directory}Entry types are also separately useful for
multi-file input and drag-n-drop applications:
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/DragAndDropEntries
To summarize, it solves several problems with FileList:
1- A DirectoryEntry can be lazily resolved by the developer. With
FileList,
What are the other proposals that handle the same use cases?
Thanks,
Bryan Sullivan
On Sep 18, 2012, at 6:07 PM, "Olli Pettay" wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API
from Recommendation track to Note. Mainly because the API hasn't been widel
For the use cases of media storage for offline use perhaps (an important use
case), but there are broader use cases necessary for the growth of Webapps
which need to manage their own arbitrary storage resources outside the
browser-managed space. Until this is supported, the web will remain a thi
On 18/09/2012 13:04 , Olli Pettay wrote:
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and
System API from Recommendation track to Note. Mainly because the API
hasn't been widely accepted nor implemented and also because there
are other proposals which handle the same use cases. Th
Hi all,
I think we should discuss about moving File API: Directories and System API
from Recommendation track to Note. Mainly because the API hasn't been widely
accepted nor
implemented and also because there are other proposals which handle the same
use cases.
The problem with keeping the API
38 matches
Mail list logo
