- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:21:11 -0800
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 11/30/11 6:04 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: >> >> I don't worry about character sets at all. I treat the content as opaque. > > > It doesn't sound like you're describing text processing at all, but binary > processing of data that happens to contain text. > > > Right, for chunked encoding, I start by treating it as binary data, and go > from there. > So, I'm not a good source for the usefulness of chunked-text. > > When I want text, I convert, but my default is more often to work with > buffers. > > I think Jonas made a good point about multibyte boundaries in text. That's > not something that can be solved by a simple method: > str = UintToString(IntArrayBufferChunk); > > But it can be solved simply by delegating it to XHR and a chunked-type > response. > > My only requirement is for chunked-arraybuffer, but I didn't mean to stand > in the way of a chunked-text type. The part of the original email that you responded to was specifically talking about weather we should have chunked-text *as well as* chunked-arraybuffer. So it seems like this sub-thread was off-topic to that question. / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2011 02:22:12 UTC