- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 17:54:56 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > > A while ago sicking proposed adding chunked support to XMLHttpRequest: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2011JulSep/0741.html > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687087 > > A use case I remember was downloading a large file of some kind that > presumably can be incrementally rendered as otherwise responseType "blob" > should be sufficient. More use cases appreciated. Would help with the > design. > > As for the feature, basically have responseType "chunked-text" and > "chunked-arraybuffer" values and reset rather than update the response > entity body with each progress event. And make sure that a progress event is > dispatched when the last fetch event is queued. And make sure that this is > only available for asynchronous usage. > > 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. If it is needed, how does it work when you just have some of > the bytes of a multi-byte character in a single chunk? Fails to decode as > per the normal algorithm? > > Also, this basically makes it possible to write EventSource on top of > XMLHttpRequest. Is that acceptable? If it encourages more people to use a > lower-level API, higher-level optimizations for mobile phones might become > harder down the road. No change came out of this thread. I think we established that there is a need for "chunked-arraybuffer". This thread contained some controversy about whether "chunked-text" is needed, but in the end the controversy didn't actually seem relevant to the question at hand. Is there a reason not to add "chunked-text" and "chunked-arraybuffer" to the spec right now? / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 00:55:56 UTC