W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Lazy Blob

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 13:26:46 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dcjbQQgCbqS5kSYg4k_B2GjX22mrF560nOt7HXN46WKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:57 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> blob = bb.getBlobFromURL("ws://specifiction.com/image/kitten.png<http://specifiction.com/kitten.png>
>> ")
>>
>
> There is no application layer transfer protocol inherent in websockets.
> Requesting a resource does not have any inherent meaning other than that
> you are opening a "channel" onto /image/kitten.png. Whoever receives that
> request is free to respond to that however he likes. You would need to
> introduce an application layer content protocol on top of websockets, and
> introduce a default websocket server framework capable of understanding
> such content requests. You're not just extending lazy reading to
> websockets. You're putting the burden on yourself to also specify a
> completely new standard application layer protocol for transfer and range
> and acquisition of resources over websocket channels.
>

So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP specific semantics when an
arbitrary URL is not specific to HTTP?
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 19:27:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT