On 2012-07-09 23:01, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 3 May 2012, Evan Jones wrote:
On May 3, 2012, at 17:09 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Yes. I think we should define multipart/form-data directly in HTML and
thereby obsolete http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388 as it is outdated
and not maintained.
Right; that would be ideal. Despite the fact that HTML5 references that
RFC, browsers don't really follow it.
I would be interested in trying to help with this, but again I would
certainly need some guidance from people who know more about the
vagaries of how the various browsers encode their form parameters /
uploaded file names, and why things got that way. It probably would not
be helpful for me to try to draft an update to the spec without getting
the right implementers on board.
If this is still something for which you have some time available, then
the starting point for anything like this would be test cases, lots and
lots of test cases. In this case, it would have to be something like a
server that echoes the precise bytes sent by the client, for a huge
variety of different setups:
- various submission encodings
- various form field names and types
- various file submission filenames
...etc.
I'd be happy to advise if this is something that still interests you.
I agree with the methodology. However I would suggest to simply revise
RFC 2388.
Best regards, Julian
