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

Re: ArrayBuffer and ByteArray questions

From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:53:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4C917891.3040706@mozilla.com>
To: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
CC: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@mozilla.com>
  On 9/7/10 10:08 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com 
> <mailto:kbr@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org
>     <mailto:nathan@webr3.org>> wrote:
>     > Jian Li wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi,
>     >>
>     >> 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()?
>     >
>     > which reminds me, I meant to ask if the aforementioned
>     TypedArray spec
>     > should be brought in to webapps / w3c land? seems to complement
>     the other
>     > base types used in webidl etc rather well + my gut reaction was
>     why isn't
>     > this standardized within w3c?
>
>     There's no particular reason why the Typed Array spec is being
>     standardized in the Khronos group, aside from the fact that these
>     array-like types originated in the WebGL spec and have evolved to meet
>     use cases specified by WebGL. We have been hoping that they would have
>     uses outside of WebGL, and some discussions have occurred with working
>     groups such as TC39 to see how they might be better specified and
>     standardized. We'd be open to hosting the spec development elsewhere.
>
>     Vlad mentioned to me off-list that Mozilla has implemented an
>     experimental mozResponseArrayBuffer on XHR objects, and will likely do
>     the same on the File API to add a readAsArrayBuffer alongside
>     readAsBinaryString etc.
>
>     -Ken
>
>
>
> It sounds like ArrayBuffer is the name that is gaining traction (to 
> circle back to Jian's original question about naming).

In fact, readAsArrayBuffer / ArrayBuffer is used with FileReader, and 
will be the names going forward.  ArrayBuffer is gaining traction as the 
used name :)

-- A*
>
> -Darin
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 01:53:57 GMT

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