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 11:09:39 -0600
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+ck39pMP5h7u19UFY3qtXH6ViTtNn+0C0uoTioX+a2HHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Glenn Adams wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I was vague. What I mean is what user-facing problem is it that
> > > we're trying to solve?
> >
> > see DAR's initial message in this thread; bringing WS into scope doesn't
> > change the problem statement, it merely enlarges the solution space, or
> > keeps it from being unnecessarily narrow
>
> Do you have a link to a specific message? I went through the archives and
> couldn't find any e-mails in this thread that came close to describing a
> use case for anything, let alone anything that would be related to
> persistent bi-directional full-duplex communication with a remote server.
>

I was referring to [1].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012JulSep/0264.html

While that message does not specifically refer to a full-duplex comm path,
it states the general problem in terms of "It is increasingly common that
data may flow from a server to an in-browser page, that may then pass that
data on to another in-browser page (typically running at a different
origin). In a many cases, such data will be captured as Blobs."

It goes on to describe a solution space oriented towards XHR as the comm
path. It occurred to me that the same problem could apply to WS comm path
patterns, which is why I suggested enlarging the solution space to include
WS.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 17:10:30 GMT

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