On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:22:44 +0200, Chris Marrin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:09:13 +0200, Jian Li <[email protected]> wrote:
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()?
So TC39 is going to leave this thing alone? I.e. are we sure
ArrayBuffer is the way of the future?
ArrayBuffer certainly has momentum behind it. It started as a part of
the WebGL spec as a way of passing buffers of data of various types
(sometimes heterogeneous types) to the WebGL engine. Since then, it has
found uses in the Web Audio proposal, the File API and there has been
talk in using it as a way to pass data to Web Workers.
Do you mean WebSockets?
We have discussed using it in XHR as well, and I think that would be a
great idea. From a WebGL standpoint, it is the one missing piece to make
it possible to easily get data of any type from a URL into the WebGL
engine. But it would have uses in many other places as well.
For reference, here is the latest proposal:
https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html
-----
~Chris
[email protected]
--
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
