I find HTTP uploading a simple thing to do. It's only about directing a stream of data to a pipe, along with a small header of information where you state the purpose of doing this upload. Nothing simpler than this.For instance, let's think of an webmail interface. Think of a way to attach a file to your message by using FTP. When using HTTP upload you simply upload your file to the input of a program on their server, which encodes it, then pastes it to the message, then passes the message to the SMTP daemon. There are a lot of other client-server applications doing such chores. Think of how difficult would be for these programs to implement an automated way of using the FTP protocol the way it exists today. No way!
To Glenn: I humbly suggest that, before implementing the HTTP upload, you should try and fix this d**n word-wrap bug in textareas. It is a very old bug that nags us every time we write e-mails using the internal editor. I know the work-around, but it would be nice for us to never have to resort to it :) Cristian On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 04:40:09 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > Dear List: > As most of you all know, Arachne and other normal internet browsers > do not come with the totally unecessary and undesireable feature of > having a "browser upload" function like the one that is incorporated > into the bloatware browsers MSIE and NetScape. <snip> > Another question: Why did the developers of MSIE and NetScape even > ever want to incorporate a "browser upload" feature? This is > certainly not a feature that any normal browser should have. This > kind of feature certainly is not needed. It serves only to make the > browser more bloated and to run more slowly. > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser for DOS- http://arachne.cz/ -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
