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 22:04:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cmn+S451BheEMxf+4fcoMoCqE2UMc0X-HAfiqHhVYiVw@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 9:35 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't particularly care if a default behavior for WS is provided that
>> buffers the entire read stream.
>>
>
> Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.  You don't access a message-based
> protocol (Web Sockets) using a character-based API (Blob).  They're utterly
> different APIs.
>

Have you read the Blob interface spec? To quote:

This interface represents *immutable* raw data. It provides a method to
slice <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-slice> data objects
between ranges of bytes into further chunks of raw data.

The last time I checked, bytes are bytes, not characters. The fact that the
interface provides access to those bytes via a particular string encoding
is irrelevant.



>
> I'll leave the details of defining this to the proposers of lazy blob.
>>
>
> You're free to come up with your own proposal, of course, and editors and
> vendors will choose among them (or come up with something else, or reject
> the idea entirely) as they always do, but others are not obligated to twist
> their proposals to your demands.
>

Of course, implementers are free to ignore whatever they want, but last
time I checked, the W3C was a consensus based standards organization which
means agreement needs to be reached on what specs go out the door and what
are in those specs. Since this is a W3C ML and not an implementers' forum,
then I will continue to assume that the W3C process applies.

There is a fixed obligation for editors and WG to address comments. They
can't simply be rejected because they require work on the part of the
editors or proposers.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 04:05:42 GMT

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