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

Re: Lazy Blob

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:45:50 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+crJnF6zaC7Unbe=PJLnkygS71QYhaNRH0_qMggJVk9ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com> wrote:

> On Aug 1, 2012, at 22:13 , Glenn Adams wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Objections need to be built on something — just objecting for the fun of
> it does not carry some weight. Up to this point, you have provided no real
> world use case that requires the feature you propose and your sole
> justification for the whole subthread is that you don't like the idea.
>

Are you saying I am objecting for the fun of it? Where did I say I don't
like the idea? You'd best reread my messages.


>
> As far as I'm concerned, barring the introduction of better arguments the
> objection is dealt with hic et nunc.
>

No it hasn't. If you want a real world use case it is this: my
architectural constraints as an author for some particular usage requires
that I use WS rather than XHR. I wish to have support for the construct
being discussed with WS. How is that not a real world requirement?
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 15:46:43 GMT

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