W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2011

[whatwg] Proposing <canvas>.toBlob(contentType)

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:14:34 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=7y8TDDQ9uuzKEDGXrFw0gFx7uug@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Kyle Huey <me at kylehuey.com> wrote:
> It doesn't necessarily imply that the encoding is synchronous.
> The problem here is that Blob.size is broken.? The point of the File API is
> to do reads asynchronously without blocking the main thread on something
> slow.? This is why the only way to get at a Blob's contents is through
> something like FileReader which is asynchronous and event driven.? Blob.size
> goes totally against all of this.? I wonder if it's possible to remove size
> entirely?? Jonas?? It's been shipped in Firefox since 3.5 though, and Chrome
> since some version from quite a while ago, so I fear it's here to stay.

Yeah, I think the current Blob and File interfaces are here to stay.
Not just because they have shipped, but because in all other
situations access to the File/Blob object is asynchronous, and so
providing synchronous access to metadata makes a lot of sense.

However, we could possibly come up with something like a UnsizedBlob
interface. We could possibly even make that a base-class of the normal
Blob interface. However it would mean introducing a lot of complexity.
All functions that currently take Blob should be changed to take
UnsizedBlob. And how would something like BlobBuilder work? Would it
return an UnsizedBlob or a Blob?

Unless we can come up with other APIs where a UnsizedBlob would make
sense, I'm tempted to say that we should use an asynchronous callback

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2011 02:14:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:05 UTC