12065 2011-02-14 15:47:18 +0000 Please point out that for <input type=file multiple> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388#section-4.2 should not be used. Instead each file should have its own field. Otherwise you break PHP. 2011-08-04 05:17:01 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG LC1 HTML5 spec unspecified Other other RESOLVED FIXED http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#multipart-form-data P3 normal --- 1 contributor ian annevk ian julian.reschke mathias mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 45485 0 contributor 2011-02-14 15:47:18 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#multipart-form-data Comment: Please point out that for <input type=file multiple> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2388#section-4.2 should not be used. Instead each file should have its own field. Otherwise you break PHP. Posted from: 83.85.115.123 by annevk@opera.com 45486 1 annevk 2011-02-14 15:49:48 +0000 (I still think we should just take over the definition of multipart/form-data by the way. It would make things much clearer.) 45490 2 ian 2011-02-14 19:13:08 +0000 There's actually no conflict with the RFC here, and the spec is technically already correct, though I will be sure to add a note explaining this case. The RFC says that you can use multipart/mixed only if a single form field has multiple files as a set, but in the case of an <input type=file multiple> control, each file generates a separate form field in the form data set. As an aside: it wouldn't take much to get me to rewrite that RFC into the HTML spec and give up on using it as an external reference, because it's not the most well-written of RFCs. But if it's not truly needed, which so far it seems it has not been, then I'd rather spend the time working on more important things. 45511 3 annevk 2011-02-15 00:21:44 +0000 Adding a note sounds good. 47874 4 ian 2011-05-03 19:22:07 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Accepted Change Description: see diff given below Rationale: Concurred with reporter's comments. 47875 5 contributor 2011-05-03 19:23:13 +0000 Checked in as WHATWG revision r6051. Check-in comment: add a note to clarify interaction with rfc 2388 http://html5.org/tools/web-apps-tracker?from=6050&to=6051 53756 6 mike 2011-08-04 05:17:01 +0000 mass-move component to LC1