- From: Chang Shu <cshu01@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 17:21:28 -0400
- To: kg@luminance.org
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>
I agree there are many cases this feature can be used for performance improvement, especially when we handle large data buffers. If we plan to enhance the Encoding spec, I personally prefer a new pair of BinaryDecoder/BinaryEncoder, which will be less confusing than reusing TextDecoder/TextEncoder. Chang On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, K. Gadd <kg@luminance.org> wrote: > JSIL currently ships a hand-rolled typed array to/from base64 implementation > due not being able to use btoa/atob; if they were improved to support typed > arrays as described that would be an improvement for some of my use cases. > It'd need to be necessary to detect the presence of the feature at runtime, > though. > > I should also point out that in general string decoding/encoding targetting > typed arrays is a really important use case for JSIL (and as I understand > things, it is also important for emscripten/embind). Right now moving > between JS strings and a fake heap in a typed array is really expensive, and > you need to do it any time you leave the domain of your application and talk > to HTML5 APIs like canvas, XHR, etc. Base64 isn't the only kind of > encode/decode that matters; I'd argue that UTF8 and UTF16 are equally > deserving of similar functionality being exposed - if not more deserving. > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:28 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> 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. >> >> >> -- >> http://annevankesteren.nl/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 21:22:03 UTC