Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 14:04:47 -0500
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:04:46 +0100
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.javascript
Subject: Re: Sending email with attachments
References: <JqadnXQNAdXTHffNnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <2610175.x4FWaXcEle@PointedEars.de>
In-Reply-To: <2610175.x4FWaXcEle@PointedEars.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <leOdnWSWKffSEfHNnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 33
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 109.144.240.194
X-Trace: sv3-DXEPzqT6WC2O7JOH92bGEPPRxBWRlfbcz1JGu+ro7rOwTUdzTknLjvjUxjzP3H/+0II68vWlWm6Ktnr!UnnZmyPTuNrKbEiJlQ/pJLS0sw+FOu8tghfCAwQWBFtYmkUpXcXp0u0CR3iO2wSWo/A3FucPptCC!i3MZdDlSG9CNXyc45OEVm9Gk+gQ/hm/tt74MWicD/Qo5D2MZ
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2514
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:16354

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> 
...
> Technically, an e-mail attachment is a part of the message body of a multi-
> part message, following a delimiter line, own header and usually a Base64-
> encoded message-part body (see [RFC2046]); so, in theory, it could work.  
> But I would not recommend it for production.  In fact, security measures 
> might prevent it.
...

It does sound worth investigating.

>  
>> Another option is to just display the data and invite the user to
>> select and copy. The data could then be pasted into the body of an
>> e-mail, or into a text file in an editor window. I believe that would
>> work, but involves more end user busy work than is ideal.
> 
> Yes, in a Web application you should make best use of the *Web* first.
>  

I'm not writing a web application.

I'm writing an application that happens to be implemented in HTML and
JavaScript, and use a browser as the run time. If iPad had a suitable
Java runtime, and a less inconvenient development process, it would have
been a Java application. Because of the choice of languages, one way of
deploying it is to use HTTP to get the files from some server. For other
combinations of situation and device, it may be better to download the
application to the client file system.

Patricia