On 9/7/10 10:08 PM, Darin Fisher wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kenneth Russell <k...@google.com
<mailto:k...@google.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Nathan <nat...@webr3.org
<mailto: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).
In fact, readAsArrayBuffer / ArrayBuffer is used with FileReader, and
will be the names going forward. ArrayBuffer is gaining traction as the
used name :)
-- A*
-Darin
