W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: [websockets] Binary support changes

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 09:20:12 +0200
To: "Web Applications Working Group WG (public-webapps@w3.org)" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Adrian Bateman" <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <op.vv99byz9idj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Sat, 28 May 2011 00:55:03 +0200, Adrian Bateman  
<adrianba@microsoft.com> wrote:

> I'm pleased to see the changes in the WebSockets API for binary message  
> support.
> I'm a little confused by this text:
>
>     When a WebSocket object is created, its binaryType IDL attribute must
>     be set to the Blob interface object associated with the same global
>     object as the WebSocket constructor used to create the WebSocket  
> object.
>     On getting, it must return the last value it was set to. On setting,  
> if
>     the new value is either the Blob or ArrayBuffer interface object
>     associated with the same global object as the WebSocket constructor  
> used
>     to create the WebSocket object, then set the IDL attribute to this  
> new
>     value. Otherwise, throw a NOT_SUPPORTED_ERR exception.
>
> I don't entirely follow what this is saying but we'd prefer the  
> binaryType to be
> a DOMString in the same fashion that the responseType is in XHR2. Is  
> there a reason
> for this to be an object? We'd prefer consistency.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12805

I agree, using interface object complicates things when working across  
globals (you basically need to pass along the global as well which is  
uglier than using a string).

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Monday, 30 May 2011 07:20:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:45 GMT