- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 09:28:39 +0200
- To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
- Cc: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com> wrote: > For XHR.send(), we've finally chosen to accept only ArrayBufferView. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0141.html > > Do we want to do the same for FetchBody body of RequestInit? What I really want is for IDL to be fixed as technically we cannot mention ArrayBuffer and ArrayBufferView in IDL as they are not IDL-defined constructs: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 I'd like something in IDL where I can just say "this accepts bytes" and "I want to return bytes", and IDL handles the complexities and ensures all APIs are compatible on this. What we did for XMLHttpRequest was probably a mistake as we could not make it an overarching policy. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 07:29:07 UTC