On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:56:13 +0100, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > But in the present, we've got XMLHttpRequest, with CORS semantics, and > all other manner of goodness. > EventSource seems to me, to have different use cases than the simpler > XHR. Yes, it is meant for streaming. XMLHttpRequest isn't really. (And EventSource will get CORS in due course.) > XHR is a pretty stable and well supported method, it seems that it'd be > reasonably straightforward > to take the current good-will around that standard, and see if a second > ArrayBuffer response type is warranted. I rather wait until all the new features are more widely adopted and tested. Then we can see if they have been a success and if we need more. > One nice thing to come out of it, saving a large file to a disk via XHR > and FileWriter would be made > much easier, with no need for temporary storage locations. > > Even with blob saved to disk, it'd take a lot of special case > optimizations to make it efficient to copy > that Blob to a new file. It'd likely require a copy, instead of what's > likely wanted: writing the file once. > > Developing this now could have a positive effect on a future EventSource > standard. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/Received on Friday, 4 February 2011 10:01:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:16 UTC