- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:49:10 -0400
- 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. -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 20:49:41 UTC