Re: atompub-multipart-01: browser implementation

[Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Bill de hOra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-06-19 22:20]:
> > Tim Bray wrote:
> > > On Jun 19, 2008, at 5:56 AM, Bill de hOra wrote:
> > > > Short version: I think this draft can't be implemented in a
> > > > browser [1].
> > > Assuming you're right (although we shouldn't underestimate the
> > > ingenuity of the rabble who make browsers do lots of things
> > > nobody thought were possible), 
> > That will be operationally equivalent to a browser exploit.
>
> As is the hidden iframe form.

I know that.


> > To be clear, I'm all for this getting onto the standards
> > treack, but this is one reason why my initial feedback included
> > the suggestion that other multipart options not be excluded by
> > design.
>
> Since RFC 5023 itself is not fully implementable in a browser,
> I don’t see how that can be a criterion for the multipart spec.

I didn't say it was a criterion. Does anyone want to argue to the 
technical facts here?


> The spec as it currently stands precludes other kinds of
> `multipart/related` payloads, but does not preclude any other
> sort of packaging protocol.

The markup in 01 doesn't exactly qualify itself; I said this about 00. 
How will another specification indicate support for another multipart 
approach - new boolean attribute?

Bill