W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [XHR] chunked

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:03:30 -0800
Message-Id: <06EA2F80-8F50-4918-83B2-3A9834CB3824@jumis.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>




On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Charles asked whether "chunked-text" was really needed (and whether we
>>>> should have "chunked" which implies ArrayBuffer instead). Nobody got back to
>>>> him on that.
>>> 
>>> Any text based format would benefit from chunked-text. While the
>>> example above uses a binary format, it applies equally to text based
>>> formats. And given how much we in this group seem to prefer text based
>>> formats, (HTML, CSS, Javascript, EventSource, JSON) I think we should
>>> assume that other people at least use them, if not prefer them.
>> 
>> My thinking was that ArrayBuffer can easily be converted to String by authors. Even with text-based formats, I prefer to fetch data as blob and buffer.
> 
> Why?

Because it helps with general methods to pass buffers around, and stream processing is buffer based. I don't need to worry about character sets or errant binary data. It's raw and easy to port, being a Transferable object.

Many of my encoding and decoding methods expect byte arrays.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:03:57 GMT

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