- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 11:55:38 -0700
- To: arun@mozilla.com
- Cc: "Nikunj R. Mehta" <nikunj.mehta@oracle.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Arun Ranganathan<arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > Jonas Sicking wrote: >> >>>> There's lots of formats used on the web, I don't think it makes sense >>>> to add file-getters for all of them. JSON has gotten a lot of >>>> attention lately, does this mean we should add a getter that return a >>>> js-style escaped string? >>>> > > I don't really feel very strongly about keeping something equivalent to > getAsBase64 (whatever the eventual model), but I don't think js-style > escaped strings are an apples-to-apples comparison to Base64 encoded strings > for binary content (but I suppose Atom and JSON bear comparison). >>>> >>>> We have getAsBinaryString, using that you can get the raw data and >>>> then base64 or escape encode it, or convert it to whatever format you >>>> want. > > This is true, but not as convenient to programmers. I think you feel that > Base64 is one convenience too many, and starts a slippery slope :-) Yes. >>> An IETF working group has published standards track proposals for a >>> format >>> and a protocol that uses base 64 encoding. If this is not sufficient >>> reason, >>> then I am sorry but you have an unduly high expectation. Let the >>> 'js-style >>> escaped string' get a similar blessing and then they can bring it to W3C >>> to >>> include them in browsers. >>> >> >> >> shouldn't we also add a base64 encoding function on XMLHttpRequest? >> the SQL (or other database) API? On postMessage? >> > > Not necessarily (if we consider AtomPub uses cases). How so? Why would you only want to AtomPub-publish stuff that are read from files? Rather than read from other websites (think cross-site XHR), or stored in offline storage, or received through postMessage from another site? An AtomPub widget that you instantiate in an <iframe> and to to via postMessage sounds very plausible. > But again, I *do* > agree that getAsBinaryString is the bare minimum convenience. I think > getting stuff as Base64 is useful syntactic sugar, but can live without it. Agreed. / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 18 August 2009 18:56:38 UTC