- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 13:03:30 -0800
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Nov 30, 2011, at 12:41 PM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: >> On Nov 30, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >>>> Charles asked whether "chunked-text" was really needed (and whether we >>>> should have "chunked" which implies ArrayBuffer instead). Nobody got back to >>>> him on that. >>> >>> Any text based format would benefit from chunked-text. While the >>> example above uses a binary format, it applies equally to text based >>> formats. And given how much we in this group seem to prefer text based >>> formats, (HTML, CSS, Javascript, EventSource, JSON) I think we should >>> assume that other people at least use them, if not prefer them. >> >> My thinking was that ArrayBuffer can easily be converted to String by authors. Even with text-based formats, I prefer to fetch data as blob and buffer. > > Why? Because it helps with general methods to pass buffers around, and stream processing is buffer based. I don't need to worry about character sets or errant binary data. It's raw and easy to port, being a Transferable object. Many of my encoding and decoding methods expect byte arrays.
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2011 21:03:57 UTC