W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Should send() be able to take an ArrayBufferView?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:49:10 -0400
Message-ID: <4F85EE46.8060306@mit.edu>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
CC: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 4/11/12 4:40 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
>> That argues for the removal of the ArrayBuffer overload, indeed, and
>> just leaving the ArrayBufferView version.
> I've got no idea where TC39 is taking things.

ArrayBuffer and ArrayBufferView and such are not specced in TC39 at the 
moment, and I'm not aware of plans to change that (though there are 
other plans like Binary Data that are related).

> I think that's the bigger issue here.

How so?

> If ArrayBufferView becomes a JS semantic, some of this is moot

Which part?

> All of the postMessage semantics use ArrayBuffer AFAIK.

postMessage does arbitrary object graphs, which can include either 
ArrayBuffers or ArrayBufferViews.  If you try to postMessage a typed 
array, the receiver will get a typed array, as expected.

> I know you've been circling this issue for awhile, so I'll put it out
> there again: yes, using typed arrays is difficult.

Sure, but we shouldn't make it _more_ difficult if we can avoid it.

Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 20:49:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:33 UTC