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.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 29 October 2010 12:46:59 GMT

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