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