- From: Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.net>
- Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 07:45:24 -0500
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 8/7/2013 5:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Chang Shu <cshu01@gmail.com> wrote: >> But it appears to me we have to introduce >> another pair of coders, say BinaryDecoder/BinaryEncoder, in addition >> to TextDecoder/TextEncode since the signatures of the decode/encode >> functions are different. > So TextDecoder is bytes to string and TextEncoder is string to bytes. > If we always represent the base64-variant as a sequence of bytes the > signature seems fine. If you want to get a string out of those bytes > again you could utf-8 decode it for instance. > > I'd be interested in knowing what the level of interest is outside of > Google for this feature. There are enough places in my code where being able to decode/encode base64 from a typed array is a necessary step that I added helper functions to do this locally, particularly when I am about to shove it through charset conversion as well. Eliminating a copy step would be useful, although I don't think I'm pushing enough data through this functions to make a noticeable performance difference. -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth E
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 12:47:19 UTC