W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webappsec@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Fetch, MSE, and MIX

From: Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 13:34:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAADho6NYHeRHHoEh7+X7kRKFQ65pgTPcF8d6Q4CU4gMQAqOrSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: Brad Hill <hillbrad@gmail.com>, Aaron Colwell <acolwell@google.com>, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 11, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Matthew Wolenetz <wolenetz@google.com>
> wrote:
> > After further internal discussion, we believe we can and should reuse
> > appendStream() rather than adding appendResponse().
>
> For those not privy, could you share the reasoning?
>

Certainly. As I understand it, the reasons for reusing appendStream()
rather than adding appendResponse() to MSE are generally two-fold:
a) MSE already has appendStream(). In combination with the other changes to
Streams API, Fetch, and Mixed Content specs, as well as the known work to
update MSE spec to use ReadableByteStream (
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27239), the scope of further
changes to existing MSE appendStream() spec are expected to be
significantly less than adding a distinct appendResponse() method to MSE.
b) We think these other specs (Streams API, Fetch, Mixed Content) are
likely to incorporate these changes anyway.

Matt
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 20:35:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 14:54:12 UTC