RE: Fetch API from Domenic Denicola on 2014-06-06 (public-script-coord@w3.org from April to June 2014)

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:49:53 +0000
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
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>
Message-ID: <bff09a1b2d534f8989487ec85e09d840@BN1PR05MB325.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>

For those who were not subscribed to public-webapps when that thread went down, here is the most convincing message:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2012AprJun/0150.html

I was previously in favor of keeping things simpler by just doing ArrayBuffer, as it feels more right to have APIs accept the “underlying buffer” instead of “just a view,” but that message changed my mind by giving a practical argument why that is not tenable.

From: Takeshi Yoshino [mailto:tyoshino@google.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 15:31
To: Anne van Kesteren
Cc: public-script-coord; Joshua Bell; Jungkee Song; Yehuda Katz; Alex Russell; Jonas Sicking; Jake Archibald; Tobie Langel; WebApps WG
Subject: Re: Fetch API

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?

Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 07:50:33 UTC