On Apr 29, 2010, at 02:36 , Eric Uhrhane wrote:
I agree. Here's what I propose:
FileWriter is needed for the FileSystem API. It's not a great match
for a one-time export of a data Blob from a web app. I think I should
take out all the how do I get a FileWriter stuff that's in [1],
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Though admittedly I'm biased because I'm not sold on the whole
FileSystem API and I don't expect anyone will step up and implement it
in firefox anytime soon.
Care to elaborate?
I don't see any significant advantages over
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Though admittedly I'm biased because I'm not sold on the whole
FileSystem API and I
I've been going through this thread trying to figure out how to make
FileWriter [1] work cleanly for the various use cases presented, and I
think the reason I've been having so much trouble is that it's just a
bad idea to do so. Its original design constraints rule out some of
the use cases. I
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
You still can't promise anything about file size. And with the current
dialogs the UA is free to improve on the current UI, for example by
doing content sniffing to make sure that the correct file type is
indeed being
Sorry about the slow response, Dmitry.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Dmitry Titov dim...@google.com wrote:
Those seem to open up so many edge cases...
If we have a File constructor like this, now we have a new category of File
objects that do have names but are not related to actual files
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN is
not
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31,
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org
wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:24:07 +0100, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
Better fallback could be achieved with button type=saveas/button.
Well, that gives you a button that does nothing.
It would fall back to a submit button, which could be used for saving on
server or doing something
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:03 AM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to simulate the load of a resource
with Content-Disposition: attachment
On Mar 31, 2010, at 16:58 , Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to simulate the load of a
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to simulate the load of a resource
with Content-Disposition: attachment
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Eric Uhrhane er...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Robin Berjon ro...@berjon.com wrote:
On Mar 31, 2010, at 01:56 , Darin Fisher wrote:
The only way to get a FileWriter at
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN is not
a property of Blob. It seems like it would be useful to be able to load a
slice of a File. For example, this could be used by an application to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN is
not
a property of Blob. It seems like it would be useful to be able to
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Darin Fisher da...@chromium.org wrote:
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN is
not
There is more than just the mime type when dealing with the URLs.
There at least two content headers of interest, Content-Type
and Content-Disposition.
Whatever mechanism involved should allow for both of these content headers
to be set
by the web application.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 3:07 PM,
The only way to get a FileWriter at the moment is from input
type=saveas. What is desired is a way to simulate the load of a resource
with Content-Disposition: attachment that would trigger the browser's
download manager.
-Darin
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc
Thanks for the explanation. The getURN method is an interesting proposal.
It seems useful even when you do have a File because you might want to
force the file contents to be loaded as a particular media type.
-Darin
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Michael Nordman micha...@google.comwrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 03:40:36 +0100, Michael Nordman micha...@google.com
wrote:
This has been discussed before, not sure what the conclusion was (if any)
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06137.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06345.htmlsnip
In order
Wouldn't it be better to have a constructor for File. File(Blob, name,
type, contentdisposition).
That could work, not sure its as intuitive. I think Files are destined to be
more often returned by various APIs and less often constructed by
application code directly. Wrapping a File/Blob in
Those seem to open up so many edge cases...
If we have a File constructor like this, now we have a new category of File
objects that do have names but are not related to actual files on a local
file system, and perhaps have different lifetime expectations.
Ability to specify a name and content
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I'm curious why URN is not
a property of Blob. It seems like it would be useful to be able to load a
slice of a File. For example, this could be used by an application to fetch
all of its subresources out of a single file.
-Darin
Blob would need a content-type for that, but it could probably easy be added
as a property that is assignable.
BTW if the Blob could have a urn and mime type, this info could be directly
used to form the headers for the Blob when sending it in multipart form
using FormData.
Dmitry
On Tue, Mar
This has been discussed before, not sure what the conclusion was (if any)
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06137.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/public-webapps@w3.org/msg06345.htmlsnip
In order for the URN to be useful, it would have to have a mediaType
associated with it,
31 matches
Mail list logo
