- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:41:31 -0400
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- CC: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/11/12 5:28 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > Adding .send(ArrayBufferView) doesn't seem like it'd hurt anything; it > would help in the case of subarray. OK, we agree that far. ;) > Removing .send(ArrayBuffer) would hurt things. That seems plausible. I'm more interested in the addition than the removal. > It may cut down on constructors/header code within cpp implementations. Not sure what you mean. > As an author, I'm going to be stuck to .send(ArrayBuffer) for awhile, > given the distance between this proposal and pick-up by MS and Apple. MS doesn't support ArrayBuffer at all, last I checked. They plan to add support in IE10. If we make this change soonish, they might ship support for send(ArrayBufferView) in IE10 as well. I'd love some actual feedback on that from the Microsoft reps in the group... > Again, if there's anything happening with TC39 that would make > .send(BinaryData) available, I'm up for waiting on it, instead of jumping > in early with ArrayBufferView. Why? The two things seem to be completely orthogonal. There's no reason we can't do both. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 21:42:01 UTC