Re: ArrayBuffer and ByteArray questions

On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> > Jian Li wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other
> spec,
> >> like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the
> >> same
> >> name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer in the Typed
> Arrays
> >> spec (
> >>
> >>
> https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html
> ),
> >> should we favor ArrayBuffer?
> >>
> >> In addition, can we consider adding ArrayBuffer support to BlobBuilder,
> >> FormData, and XMLHttpRequest.send()?
> >
> > which reminds me, I meant to ask if the aforementioned TypedArray spec
> > should be brought in to webapps / w3c land? seems to complement the other
> > base types used in webidl etc rather well + my gut reaction was why isn't
> > this standardized within w3c?
>
> There's no particular reason why the Typed Array spec is being
> standardized in the Khronos group, aside from the fact that these
> array-like types originated in the WebGL spec and have evolved to meet
> use cases specified by WebGL. We have been hoping that they would have
> uses outside of WebGL, and some discussions have occurred with working
> groups such as TC39 to see how they might be better specified and
> standardized. We'd be open to hosting the spec development elsewhere.
>
> Vlad mentioned to me off-list that Mozilla has implemented an
> experimental mozResponseArrayBuffer on XHR objects, and will likely do
> the same on the File API to add a readAsArrayBuffer alongside
> readAsBinaryString etc.
>
> -Ken
>
>

It sounds like ArrayBuffer is the name that is gaining traction (to circle
back to Jian's original question about naming).

-Darin