- From: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 17:23:39 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:55:33 +0200, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote: >> >> Mozilla's experimental name is "mozResponseArrayBuffer", so perhaps to >> avoid collisions the spec could call it responseArrayBuffer. > > While I do not think there would be collision (at least not in ECMAScript, > which is what we are designing for) naming it responseArrayBuffer is fine > with me. And also now done that way in the draft. Still need to get a saner > reference to the ArrayBuffer specification than > https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html > though. :-) > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/XMLHttpRequest-2/ Thanks, this is great and very exciting. This motivates implementing the proposed DataView interface ( https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html#6 ), which will make it easier to read multi-byte values with specified endianness out of an ArrayBuffer. For WebKit I've filed https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46541 . -Ken > (You can also do send(ArrayBuffer) obviously. I personally think supporting > this for both BlobBuilder and send() makes sense. That way Blob/File etc. > work too.) > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Saturday, 25 September 2010 00:24:37 UTC