- From: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:09:33 -0700
- To: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5dd9e5c50909251009o7102cf15ycea3bfdfa45bb90f@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Web Applications Working Group Issue Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org <sysbot%2Btracker@w3.org>> wrote: > > ISSUE-104: supporting structured clones [XHR2] > > http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/track/issues/104 > > Raised by: Anne van Kesteren > On product: XHR2 > > It would be nice to support the HTML5 concept of structured clones for both > sending and receiving. Prerequisite of that is getting a serialization > format defined and preferably some kind of media type for it. (I think this > would be better than supporting JSON.) > I can't access the issue tracker, so I'm replying here. What's the use case for this? As far as I can tell, everything that Structured Clones support is either 1) easy to serialize into JSON, 2) expensive to serialize, or 3) silly to serialize. An example of 2 would be ImageData. An example of 3 would be RegEx's. File and FileData would fit either in 2 or 3 depending on how you implemented them. My point is that I don't see a strong reason why Structured Clones would be useful outside of the browser. And thus I'm not sure it's worth the effort to create a standardized way of serializing it. But maybe I'm missing something?
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 17:10:33 UTC