W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: XHR responseArrayBuffer attribute: suggestion to replace "asBlob" with "responseType"

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 19:51:26 -0400
Message-ID: <4CC617FE.8090100@mit.edu>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Darin Fisher <darin@google.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, jorlow@google.com
On 10/25/10 7:05 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:
> I don't think we can say that. responseArrayBuffer is going to enable new uses of XHR. Floating point arrays for 3D mesh animation can easily get into the multi-megabyte range.

Hmm...  But will people still be accessing .responseText on those?  And 
if so, wouldn't they be broken by the proposals so far in this thread?

> This replaces everything with 3 parts:
>
> 	any responseObject(); // Return an object based on the currently requested data type
> 	DOMString responseType(); Return the current type setting;
>
> The last part is adding a param to XHR.open() which specifies the desired type.

This doesn't seem to allow deciding on the "type" based on the content 
type returned by the server....

> We'd of course have to support the existing API for legacy. But the above API supplants the current responseText(), responseXML(), etc.

I'm not sure I follow this part.  So you'd have to support the new API 
_and_ .responseText?  I thought this was what you were trying to avoid...

-Boris
Received on Monday, 25 October 2010 23:52:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:41 GMT