On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > >> Can we please stop saying "lazy blob"? It's a confused and confusing >> phrase. Blobs are "lazy" by design. >> >> On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> >>> So? Why should lazy blob be specific to HTTP specific semantics when an >>> arbitrary URL is not specific to HTTP? >>> >> >> XHR is no more specific to HTTP than it is to XML. It serves as the >> primary JavaScript API for performing generic network fetches. WebSockets >> has an entirely different API from blobs, and bringing them up is only >> derailing the thread. >> > > The subject line says Lazy Blob, not Lazy Blob and XHR. For the record, I > will object to a LazyBlob solution that is tied solely to XHR, so deal with > it now rather than later. > Just to make it clear, I support the idea of defining a "lazy blob" mechanism. However, I am not satisfied that a solution that is tied solely to XHR is sufficient. I would like to see a mechanism that supports both XHR and WS [and others?]. Despite the repeated claims of Florian and GlennM that it doesn't make sense, etc., I think it does make sense and can be reasonably (and simply) defined to handle such use cases. If necessary I can volunteer a strawman to that end. However, I would prefer that DAR or other proposers take the time to consider this use case and factor it into their proposals.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 04:33:38 UTC