Re: revised recording proposal

On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Travis Leithead <
travis.leithead@microsoft.com> wrote:

>   I am still not convinced time-sliced data is better returned as a blob
> versus an ArrayBuffer, particularly if latency is an critical concern (i.e.
> “reliable” streaming).  At very least you will need the extra step of
> invoking the FileReader I/F (
> http://www.w3.org/TR/FileAPI/#FileReader-interface) to get at Blob data.
>

I'm convinced that returning a Blob is better than an ArrayBuffer. Blobs
have been designed so the UA need not store them in CPU-addressable memory.
ArrayBuffers have not. As Tim observed, this freedom is especially useful
in this case, where the data could be very large.

And I agree with others that returning a Blob is better than returning a
File (because a File is just a Blob with extra attributes that aren't
needed here).

My only concern about using Blobs is this: what is the MIME type of a Blob
which is the second slice of, say, a Wave file? Is it even OK to set the
expected MIME type on the first slice of a resource, if it's not a complete
resource of that type? I think the latter is probably OK, but perhaps we
should say that the first Blob gets the MIME type of the whole resource and
the types of later Blobs are just the empty string.

Rob
-- 
Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the
Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority
over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among
you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your
slave — just
as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his
life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]