W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2010

Re: [whatwg] ArrayBuffer and ByteArray questions

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 08:22:44 -0700
Cc: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-id: <AA0EFD35-6AFB-4213-8DAC-9D85A731EE70@apple.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>

On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:

> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:09:13 +0200, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org> wrote:
>> Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other spec, like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the same name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer in the Typed Arrays spec (
>> https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html),
>> should we favor ArrayBuffer?
>> 
>> In addition, can we consider adding ArrayBuffer support to BlobBuilder,
>> FormData, and XMLHttpRequest.send()?
> 
> So TC39 is going to leave this thing alone? I.e. are we sure ArrayBuffer is the way of the future?

ArrayBuffer certainly has momentum behind it. It started as a part of the WebGL spec as a way of passing buffers of data of various types (sometimes heterogeneous types) to the WebGL engine. Since then, it has found uses in the Web Audio proposal, the File API and there has been talk in using it as a way to pass data to Web Workers. We have discussed using it in XHR as well, and I think that would be a great idea. From a WebGL standpoint, it is the one missing piece to make it possible to easily get data of any type from a URL into the WebGL engine. But it would have uses in many other places as well.

For reference, here is the latest proposal:

	https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 15:23:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:40 GMT