Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?

Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> Wed, 27 February 2013 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39A921F87A3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:43:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.532
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SCbIwiscS6Iv for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560A021F868B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:43:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAj8j-0002gP-KQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:41:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:41:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAj8j-0002gP-KQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UAj8U-0002cn-7o for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:41:38 +0000
Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UAj8T-0005rI-BV for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:41:38 +0000
Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org>) id 1UAj8Q-0008GQ-1w for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:41:34 +0100
Received: from 163.116.6.10 ([163.116.6.10]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:41:34 +0100
Received: from nicolas.mailhot by 163.116.6.10 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:41:34 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:40:55 +0000
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <loom.20130227T162930-922@post.gmane.org>
References: <CAMm+LwiF6EM8_aQgUm=nPS5XqaG25iRGNke_rnHTM1vTGMXdfg@mail.gmail.com> <A6A82B6EF92590887D2A23D5@cyrus.local> <D9118B58-F53F-4F75-8292-2B990172E234@opengroupware.org> <CABP7RbcX2OqttZuYeuYxhyOgE_ax0M67L1ywPy_VDpW1upM69Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNeWDBTBYJ0P-URbO5avbUno5etKid10RM+dRwDWAUys2w@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfVvZnYPPsRvzmC0BtCiPBxQmYXHTRKtq8XE7Z2wY2EfA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYioRAOEbjU32yEaJuWDAySiZF=OfKXcF-8esqTP0uqwtQ@mail.gmail.com> <968F329C-B6CF-4129-B816-DC56C834A4A4@opengroupware.org> <CAA4WUYgGiJmtbswzmXWi-Ob+1HmoGnMhwr+9j9b5KS5OVQQdjQ@mail.gmail.com> <2DA0834D-C0B7-4A26-B6AD-B5789D0CFA3B@opengroupware.org> <999F9463-660A-42FC-A11C-39CDE95CC616@mnot.net> <D70BFCAB-D2C1-4C66-994F-0C53F6C66581@opengroupware.org> <CABP7RbeiwjGXSO2F4BAc-MjnpRRzBddzP4Sm=Z15meaODQb4bQ@mail.g mail.com> <loom.20130227T111123-907@post.gmane.org> <512DE10E.4090200@gmx.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org
User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/)
X-Loom-IP: 163.116.6.10 (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=80.91.229.3; envelope-from=gix-ietf-http-wg@m.gmane.org; helo=plane.gmane.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=2.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FSL_HELO_BARE_IP_2=2.19, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=0.865, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.703, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UAj8T-0005rI-BV 19b82aee3c8e2e1b87c391dc60973d06
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multi-GET, extreme compression?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/loom.20130227T162930-922@post.gmane.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16878
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@...> writes:

> 
> On 2013-02-27 11:16, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > James M Snell <jasnell@...> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Fair enough
> >
> > There is a similar need for mput/mpost, the fact current web apps require
> > a separate user sequence for each file a user wants to publish/attach to a
> > message is one of the few remaining use-cases where they suck compared to
> > local apps.
> 
> But that's UI (HTML/JS), not protocol, right? Also, that's solvable; I 
> happen to be in a project where our web app supports bulk upload of 
> files by drag & drop to the browser window...

That's just another workaround, where you paper over the missing feature with
gobs of site-specific javascript and by pretending the average user
drag-and-drops files in apps. I've seen the same demoware years ago it does not
work out in real life.

The average user does not drag and drop he uses the file selector, that maps to
standard html forms, that maps to what the protocol knows to do (one element at
a time). In browsers the file selector is restricted to single file selection to
respect what non-js-extended http/html ecosystem allows.

And, lastly, most web app developpers will not bother with loads of feel-good js
workarounds since what the users want is their default file selector, not some
kind of js emulation.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot