On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org> wrote: > > Jian Li wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other > spec, > >> like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the > >> same > >> name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer in the Typed > Arrays > >> spec ( > >> > >> > https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html > ), > >> should we favor ArrayBuffer? > >> > >> In addition, can we consider adding ArrayBuffer support to BlobBuilder, > >> FormData, and XMLHttpRequest.send()? > > > > which reminds me, I meant to ask if the aforementioned TypedArray spec > > should be brought in to webapps / w3c land? seems to complement the other > > base types used in webidl etc rather well + my gut reaction was why isn't > > this standardized within w3c? > > There's no particular reason why the Typed Array spec is being > standardized in the Khronos group, aside from the fact that these > array-like types originated in the WebGL spec and have evolved to meet > use cases specified by WebGL. We have been hoping that they would have > uses outside of WebGL, and some discussions have occurred with working > groups such as TC39 to see how they might be better specified and > standardized. We'd be open to hosting the spec development elsewhere. > > Vlad mentioned to me off-list that Mozilla has implemented an > experimental mozResponseArrayBuffer on XHR objects, and will likely do > the same on the File API to add a readAsArrayBuffer alongside > readAsBinaryString etc. > > -Ken > > It sounds like ArrayBuffer is the name that is gaining traction (to circle back to Jian's original question about naming). -Darin