Roman Neuhauser wrote: > # ceo@xxxxxxxxx / 2007-01-03 15:48:31 -0600: >> On Wed, January 3, 2007 2:52 pm, Philip Thompson wrote: >>> I have a form where a user can upload different types of documents. A >>> valid file type they will be able to upload is a Word Document. >>> However, when I view the $_FILES 'type' of a word document in Internet >>> Explorer, it says it's type 'application/octet-stream' instead of >>> 'application/msword' or 'application/vnd.ms-word'. It works fine in >>> Firefox and Safari. >>> >>> Any ideas why IE does this and/or how I might be able to get around >>> this? >> IE does this because MS is not interested in interoperability. > > Back this statements with some references, will you? do a quick google on anti-trust or something. there is plenty of evidence that Microsoft has and does continue to hamper and/or ignore interoperability on many fronts. > >> Note that application/octet-stream is valid for any kind of document >> whatsoever for an upload. For output, that would require the browser >> to download the document rather than attempt to display it. More on >> that here: >> http://richardlynch.blogspot.com/ > > To the OP: read that rant for amusement, but don't use the "advice" > rlynch gives, it's nonsense. If you don't believe me, check the RFCs richard's practical experience in dealing with this things is nonsense? he has been dealing with this kind of stuff [I'm referring just to his experience/work with php for the purpose of this reply] for longer than most of us have even heard of php - and for companies that most of us would give our right arm to work for. his rant is based on lots of experience on how to make things that work, rather than making that should work because they adhere to any/every given standard (but don't work because of any number of real world situations) I would strongly suggest you tone down your rather acidic comments directed at richard (this was not the first) - he is one of the most valued and respected people on this list, he's helped more people improve their skills than most of us have written lines of code ... throwing random nasties at him really won't win you any friends, conversly richard has made *lots* of friends within the php community. he has earned the right to occasionally offer his personal slant on a situation. call me protective, I don't mind, richard has earned my respect twice (and then some) ... and this is the result. if you have something serious to add or refute with regard to richard input then do it properly - if you end up teaching him something, you'll find that he is very much open to taking what you have to offer on board and even go so far as to promptly adjust an 'advice'/'article' he might have lying around according to his newly aquired knowledged. > yourself. because something is set out in an RFC doesn't necessarily mean it's been implemented either fully or correctly - regardless of whether a given implementation is 'broken' deliberately or accidentally. > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=116626545820302&w=2 > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=php-general&m=116649130605303&w=2 > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
