- From: Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:53:21 -0700
- To: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
- CC: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, nathan@webr3.org, Jian Li <jianli@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Vladimir Vukicevic <vladimir@mozilla.com>
- Message-ID: <4C917891.3040706@mozilla.com>
On 9/7/10 10:08 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com > <mailto:kbr@google.com>> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org > <mailto: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). In fact, readAsArrayBuffer / ArrayBuffer is used with FileReader, and will be the names going forward. ArrayBuffer is gaining traction as the used name :) -- A* > > -Darin
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 01:53:57 UTC