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

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

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 13:20:53 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimOQMXXwfsQ7dZMqvVH-M1N-Wf_dNV9WAp_OgC3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Olli@pettay.fi" <Olli@pettay.fi>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, 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" <michaeln@google.com>, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, "jorlow@google.com" <jorlow@google.com>, "jamesr@chromium.org" <jamesr@chromium.org>
On Monday, November 1, 2010, Olli Pettay <Olli.Pettay@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 09:34 AM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>  wrote:
>
> On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>
>
> Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
>
>
> The one where you pick one up front and it throws if you ask for something
> else, right?
>
>
> I agree that it has a downside in that it doesn't allow figuring out
> the type as data starts coming in.
>
>
> Well, that, and the whole "throws exceptions" bit...
>
>
> I'm not entirely following what your concern is. I.e. what usage
> pattern you are worried will either break in existing code, or people
> will get wrong in new code.
>
> My suggestion is that we add a .response property which always contain
> the result, no matter what type is being fetched. In the "default"
> mode, when .resonseType is not set, it can contain the same value as
> .responseText currently contains. If .responseType is set to "blob" it
> will return a Blob object, if it's set to "binary" it will return a
> ArrayBuffer etc.
>
>
> But the existing responseText and responseXML would still work as they
> work atm? They would be basically the old, sort-of-deprecated-API?
> If developer wants to get stringified value from ArrayBuffer response,
> she/he could use .responseText?

They would work as-is is responseType is the empty string (i.e.
default). If .responseType is set to anything else they throw an
exception.

> (Browsers could actually warn in the error console if use of old and
> new API is mixed)

That would probably be a good idea too.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 1 November 2010 20:21:27 GMT

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