On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Jonas Sicking <jo...@sicking.cc> wrote:

> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Glenn Maynard <gl...@zewt.org> wrote:
> > I'm not aware of any optimized inflate implementation in JS to compare
> > against, and it's a complex algorithm, so nobody is likely to jump
> forward
> > to spend a lot of time implementing and heavily optimizing it just to
> show
> > how slow it is.  I've seen an implementation around somewhere, but it
> didn't
> > use typed arrays so it would need a lot of reworking to have any meaning.
>
> Likewise, I don't see any browser vendor jumping ahead and doing both
> the work to implement a library *and* and API to compare the two.
>

Sorry, this didn't make sense.  What "library *and* API" are you talking
about?  To compare what?

 > Every browser already has native inflate, though.
>
> This is unfortunately not a terribly strong argument. Exposing that
> implementation through a DOM API requires a fairly large amount of
> work. Not to add maintaining that over the years.
>

You're arguing for allowing accessing files inside ZIPs by URL, which means
you're going to have to do the work anyway, since you'd be able to create a
blob URL, reference a file inside it using XHR, and get a Blob as a
result.  This is a small subset of that.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Reply via email to