W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > September 2010

[Bug 10389] why onbitmap? onfile is enough. if you have onbitmap then why not put ondocument and onpdf and onxlsx and so on? onfile is enough

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:32:53 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OzGp3-0006Tb-CJ@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10389


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch
          Component|HTML5 spec (editor: Ian     |other Hixie drafts (editor:
                   |Hickson)                    |Ian Hickson)




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-09-24 22:32:52 ---
onbitmap is there to complement sendBitmap().

sendBitmap() is there because it is quite plausible that we'll need to send
HTMLImageElements a lot (maybe HTMLCanvasElements too, but they can be better
represented as HTMLImageElements on the receiving side), and it's a pain to
have to get a File out of them first.

sendDocument/ondocument might make sense; what's the use case?

sendPDF/onpdf and sendXLSX/onxslx doesn't make much sense since those types
aren't native types on the Web platform.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 24 September 2010 22:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:25 UTC