On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:14:23 +0200, Sam Weinig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sending a File can be accomplished with an extension to XMLHttpRequest
that overrides the existing send() method.
Objects implementing the XMLHttpRequest interface must also implement
the FileXMLHttpRequest interface.
int
Sam Weinig wrote:
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Sam,
This seems like a reasonable extension to me.
A colleague asks "Are there any new security concerns by putting this
inside XHR, or is the assumption that we are not exposing anything new?"
Wh
On Jul 28, 2008, at 10:45 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Sam,
This seems like a reasonable extension to me.
A colleague asks "Are there any new security concerns by putting
this inside XHR, or is the assumption that we are not exposing
anything new?"
What are your thou
Arthur Barstow wrote:
Hi Sam,
This seems like a reasonable extension to me.
A colleague asks "Are there any new security concerns by putting this
inside XHR, or is the assumption that we are not exposing anything new?"
What are your thoughts on that question? I presume "not exposing
anyth
Hi Sam,
This seems like a reasonable extension to me.
A colleague asks "Are there any new security concerns by putting this
inside XHR, or is the assumption that we are not exposing anything new?"
What are your thoughts on that question? I presume "not exposing
anything new" given this ty
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if it is possible to make resumability more automatic, somewhat
> like the way If-Range is used to do resumable downloads. But manual slicing
> does seem like an ok solution.
We have been thinking about that
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
I have two minor concerns with this proposal, both in the cases
where
it differs from Gears:
1. Combining the
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
>> I have two minor concerns with this proposal, both in the cases where
>> it differs from Gears:
>>
>> 1. Combining the concepts of 'large chunk of binary data' and '
2. The slice() method seems important for the initial version,
particularly if you are targeting the large upload use case. We use
this to cut up a large file into smaller pieces so that they can be
uploaded individually. This makes the upload resilient and also allows
the UI to show progress on
On Jul 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's
extension. We
are proposing making the File object usable directly as an XHR
body, so that
we can all
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Is the only difference from the Gears proposal the name of the object
("File") and the lack of reading APIs initially?
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension.
We are proposing making t
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension. We
> are proposing making the File object usable directly as an XHR body, so that
> we can all support file upload through XHR interoperably withou
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Aaron Boodman wrote:
Is the only difference from the Gears proposal the name of the object
("File") and the lack of reading APIs initially?
The Gears proposal has a File object too, as does Mozilla's extension.
We are proposing making the File object usable di
Not exactly. This Gears proposal introduces an extra level of
indirection with Blobs that this proposal does not. This can be seen
as a subset, that Blobs could build on in the future, and in fact is
entirely compatible with the Gears proposal.
-Sam
On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:23 PM, Aaron B
Is the only difference from the Gears proposal the name of the object
("File") and the lack of reading APIs initially?
- a
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Sam Weinig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We would like to propose standardizing a way of using XMLHttpRequest to send
> files to the server.
We would like to propose standardizing a way of using XMLHttpRequest
to send files to the server. We propose using a similar (and
compatible) API to the Blob based API proposed by Google Gears (http://code.google.com/p/gears/wiki/BlobWebAPIPropsal
), but instead of sending Blob objects, the F
16 matches
Mail list logo
