Le 05/08/2013 00:50, Andrew Sutherland a écrit : > On 08/04/2013 06:32 PM, Brian Smith wrote: >> 4. I think we should be working towards a goal of making DeviceStorage >> permission from the email app, by improving the capabilities of the >> alternatives that would make the use of DeviceStorage unnecessary. > > (I am assuming s/making DeviceStorage permission/removing the > DeviceStorage permission/) > >> Using >> gmail.com in the browser should be as convenient, with respect to how an >> email app accesses the file system, as our built-in email app. So, I >> think >> it would be best if we avoided optimizing for the case where the >> email app >> has DeviceStorage, even if we have to continue using DeviceStorage >> until an >> alternative DeviceStorage-less implementation can be done. (Also, I am >> curious what exactly we'd need to improve in the platform to make it >> so the >> built-in email app doesn't need DeviceStorage.) > > There is a UX proposal/spec along these lines. If you check out > "email-attachments.pdf" from > https://mozilla.app.box.com/applications/1/864506434 (or manually > traversing "Email", "Interaction" from > https://mozilla.app.box.com/applications/ when that link inevitably > breaks), you can take a look starting from page 23, "Viewing and > saving attachments". > > The main idea is that the e-mail app does not directly save > attachments to DeviceStorage like we do now. Instead, we'd host the > Blob in IndexedDB. When the user clicks on the attachment to view it, > we use a web activity to open the viewer, and from that viewer the > user can choose to "save" the attachment, presumably to DeviceStorage, > but it really would be up to the app implementing the view activity.
Sorry if that's dump, could there be a generic "save" activity handler that would just save the file somewhere using DeviceStorage ?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dev-b2g mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g
