- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:33:57 -0700
- To: Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org>
- Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Jeremy Orlow <jorlow@chromium.org> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 7:25 AM, Web Applications Working Group Issue > Tracker <sysbot+tracker@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? Yeah, I'm not entirely convinced of structured clones as a network format either. The one use-case beyond JSON i can see is Files and FileData. I'm sort of thinking that we should support only that. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 17:36:28 UTC