Re: XHR responseArrayBuffer attribute: suggestion to replace "asBlob" with "responseType" from Tab Atkins Jr. on 2010-11-09 (public-webapps@w3.org from October to December 2010)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 12:03:05 -0800
To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Cc: David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, jorlow@google.com, jamesr@chromium.org
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHsuYFS=E=ybHF2LtzwE4yhP4Na6=yhsCjX-vx@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
> Sorry for the delayed response.  I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a
> reasonable one.  As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential
> performance and compatibility issues.  Are you imagining that the API is
> effectively the same as XMLHttpRequest, except without the text and XML
> part?
> How do other people feel about David's proposal?

I'm in favor a new constructor.  It seems silly to first hack
ourselves into a corner by extending an API designed for text or XML,
then try to hack our way out of the problems that causes.  A new
object that does what's needed seems like the cleanest and most
correct solution to the problem.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 9 November 2010 20:03:55 UTC