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 14:13:36 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+czv8drOskk2tgLNqU2GhwTXheQOQCH+40Bd9iHTUth7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
Cc: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> Can we please stop saying "lazy blob"?  It's a confused and confusing
> phrase.  Blobs are "lazy" by design.
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP specific semantics when an
>> arbitrary URL is not specific to HTTP?
>>
>
> XHR is no more specific to HTTP than it is to XML.  It serves as the
> primary JavaScript API for performing generic network fetches.  WebSockets
> has an entirely different API from blobs, and bringing them up is only
> derailing the thread.
>

The subject line says Lazy Blob, not Lazy Blob and XHR. For the record, I
will object to a LazyBlob solution that is tied solely to XHR, so deal with
it now rather than later.
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 20:14:23 GMT

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