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

Re: [XHR2] why have an asBlob attribute at all?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:46:09 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik1t71qfkPSV3KN4Vws04VF5v46rB=+zNH9mVmN@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:55:58 +0200, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com>
> wrote:
>> I doubt I understand all the implementation issues.  But if there really
>> is some reason to have this blob/non-blob decision point before calling
>> send(), can I suggest that instead of confusing the XHR API with it, it be
>> moved into a separate BlobHttpRequest interface that has only reponseBlob
>> and does not even define responseText, etc.
> Brainstorming here. We could choose to always expose resonseArrayBuffer and
> keep it together with responseText and responseXML. And for applications
> that are worried about memory usage or care about very large files we could
> have BlobXMLHttpRequest similar to AnonXMLHttpRequest. We'd abstract some
> things out from XMLHttpRequest so BlobXMLHttpRequest does not have the other
> response* members and so that AnonXMLHttpRequest does not need
> withCredentials and the fourth and fifth parameter to open().

Could we, um, not include the word "XML" in any new things?
BlobHttpRequest seems much less silly.

Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 12:46:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 14:36:46 UTC