- From: Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 00:34:09 -0700
- To: arun@mozilla.com
- 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: <AANLkTi=Bp4S4ehk9c4x0aUsMpu2xLyudfwd7PTM=G0sS@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 9/7/10 10:08 PM, Darin Fisher wrote: > > 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). > > > In fact, readAsArrayBuffer / ArrayBuffer is used with FileReader, and will > be the names going forward. ArrayBuffer is gaining traction as the used > name :) > > Great, sounds good. -Darin
Received on Thursday, 16 September 2010 07:34:40 UTC