On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:23:20 +0100, Alex Henrie <alexhenri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:15 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@opera.com>
wrote:
Microsoft did. And nothing changed in well over a year. (They say so in
a comment on the blog post.)
Perhaps the buggy code was only sent to IE, and Firefox got more
reasonable code. If the firmware had working code for both Firefox and
the latest stable version of IE, that would explain the company's
reluctance to see a problem.
Maybe, maybe not.
Another reason might be that this firmware only runs on old routers
and no firmware updates are being released for it, so few users would
run into the problem with trying to update firmware. What firmware was
this, exactly?
I have no idea. It just indicates issues are out there.
Example: A site lets a user upload a file and write some comments
associated with that file. On the browser side, a new input element is
dynamically created with the name and id "Notes for
C:\fakepath\upload.txt". On the server side, the server receives
"upload.txt" and looks for "Notes for upload.txt" to match. It of
course is not there because the programmer had no idea that the
browser would be adding appending a fake path in JavaScript but not in
HTTP.
I don't see how this example could work. Anyway, relying on .value to just
return a filename is a bogus assumption anyway since lots of user agents
out there are not doing that.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
