- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 16:45:08 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, ATSUSHI TAKAYAMA <taka.atsushi@googlemail.com>
Following up on this older thread, Mozilla has added ArrayBuffer to their XHR object, though the documentation is a little bare. xhr.mozResponseArrayBuffer On 2/4/2011 2:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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. > >
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 00:45:33 UTC