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

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

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:18:08 -0700
Cc: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, 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, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, jorlow@google.com, jamesr@chromium.org
Message-id: <37B8DB75-7790-4AB6-B4BD-B89E68CEAE94@apple.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>

On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:40 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> On 10/27/10 3:24 AM, Darin Fisher wrote:
>> So, it sounds like we just need to present you with some concrete
>> examples of XHRs being used to fetch large responses as Text or XML, and
>> then you will be convinced?
> 
> Uh... no.  I'm sure these happen.  The question is whether their existence is sufficient grounds to impose additional burdens on other uses of XHR.

But  we always have to keep the current functionality. Whatever logic exists in today's implementations to handle calling either responseText or responseXML would still have to be there. I think we're talking about new functionality that the author would opt into. Turn on the "I only ever want this as an ArrayBuffer" flag and attempts to do responseText or responseXML would result in an error. I don't think that affects today's author, doe it?

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 17:18:49 GMT

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