Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:33:06 +0100, Markus Ernst <derer...@gmx.ch> wrote:
Anne van Kesteren schrieb:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:13:52 +0100, Markus Ernst <derer...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
I have no idea how to handle such inconsistent behaviour on the
server side (except adding extra code to flatten all uploaded
directory structures before handling). I assume that HTTP upload
should be kept simple, and more complex upload tasks should be
handled with specialized applications, such as RadUpload[1].
[1] http://www.radinks.com
I don't think we want to rely on the availability of Java on the end
user's platform (or the availability of any other plug-in for that
matter).
I did not mean including it into HTML5 or an UA. Just leaving
specialized upload tasks out of the standard, assuming that developers
will work with applications that they think are useful for their tasks
(and that rely on technologies they believe are avaliable at their
target audience).
And I mean that if it is important to application developers we should
make it available as a feature and not endorse some plug-in dependency.
Ok.
Jonas Sicking schrieb:
> If we're going to expose a full or partial path, then I think we
> should do that separately from the .name property. I'd rather keep the
> .name strictly be the leaf name.
I support this point. I assume that changing the name property would
break backwards compatibility, as server-side applications (at least the
ones I wrote) rely on the current behaviour.
There is an other aspect in Ians proposal - avoiding file name
conflicts, when e.g. /a/1.jpg and /b/1.jpg are uploaded. This can be
handled by the UA, for example by displaying an error message, allowing
to rename the conflicting files before upload.
