- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:54:21 +0200
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Chris Rogers" <crogers@google.com>, "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Eric Uhrhane" <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, "Darin Fisher" <darin@google.com>, "Alexey Proskuryakov" <ap@webkit.org>, "Chris Marrin" <cmarrin@apple.com>, "Geoffrey Garen" <ggaren@apple.com>, jorlow@google.com
On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 02:43:58 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/26/10 5:27 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> Boris, do you see value in the asBlob / responseBlob proposal currently >> in the draft? > > The idea there being that you don't have to have the data in memory at > all unless the page explicitly asks for it, and then giving the page the > option of only mapping some of the data into memory? > > I think that's a good idea, yes. > > What I'm not quite sure about is why it needs to be a state flag which > makes it an open-time all-or-nothing decision, other than implementor > convenience.... Okay, so even for responseBlob you think it should be the implementor handling the complexity. I tend to agree with you and am glad you joined the discussion. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2010 09:55:20 UTC