<font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In that case, I'd like to propose a set of MIME types that the spec explicitly mentions for interoperability with native apps:</font><div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- text/plain for compatibility with IE</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- text/uri-list for compatibility with IE</font></div><div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- text/html for rich text formatting. One potential usage--a reference site such as Wikipedia could implement a drag-out handler which automatically encapsulates the dragged snippet in a "quote" box and links back to the source.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- application/rtf for rich text data. RTF is called out in particular since it allows embedded images, which HTML does not. This would allow someone to drag-and-drop cells and a graph from a spreadsheet into an email.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- image/png for image transfers. Native drag and drop usually involves bitmaps, so the UA would automatically perform a lossless conversion from the native platform-dependent bitmap format to a PNG if the page requested this type. One example usage is uploading a picture of your desktop--simply hit 'Print Screen', navigate to the image sharing site, and ^V.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">- image/svg+xml for vector image transfers. It should be possible to convert the various vector formats (WMF, PS, PDF) into SVG, but I'm not sure how valuable doing this would be.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Those 6 types seem to cover a fairly wide variety of use cases without being too domain-specific. What do people think?</font></div>
<div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div>Daniel</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:15, Anne van Kesteren <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:annevk@opera.com" target="_blank">annevk@opera.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 02:20:57 +0200, Daniel Cheng <<a href="mailto:dcheng@chromium.org" target="_blank">dcheng@chromium.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
To clarify, I wasn't proposing that pages need to know details of a<br>
particular OS. Things like "text/plain", "text/uri-list", "text/html", etc. are automatically mapped by the UA to whatever the appropriate platform<br>
idiom is.<br>
<br>
I just thought it would be useful to also expose things that the UA itself doesn't natively understand--it just gets passed through to the web content.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I was saying that if you get this on one OS but not another you might get pages that depend on a particular OS if not coded carefully.<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
However, this led to the above problem with filenames being exposed. This<br>
can, to some extent, be mitigated by blacklisting certain types; I'm just<br>
wondering if people feel that the additional utility is worth the risk of<br>
potentially exposing file paths because of a chatty file manager, or if<br>
anyone has any ideas on how to mitigate this risk.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It should probably work with a whitelist.<div><div></div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Anne van Kesteren<br>
<a href="http://annevankesteren.nl/" target="_blank">http://annevankesteren.nl/</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>