| If you have any comments or concerns about this proposal, please reply
| to this e-mail by November 3 at the latest.
While adding streams to the platform seems a good idea to me, I've a few
concern with this proposal.
My biggest concerns are articulated over two issues:
- Streams should exist in at least two fashions: InputStream and
OutputStream. Both of them serve different purposes and, while some stream
may actually be both, this remains an exceptional behavior worth being
noted. Finally, a "Stream" is not equal to a InMemoryStream as the
constructor may seem to indicate. A stream is a much lower-level concept,
which may actually have nothing to do with InMemory operations.
- Secondly, the Stream interface is mixing the Stream and the
StreamReader/StreamWriter concepts. I do not have a problem, if this is done
properly, to mix the two concepts (aka most applications will want to use a
StreamReader/StreamWriter anyway) but the current incarnation is not
powerfull enough to be really useful, while still managing to be confusing.
As an actionable advice to the authors of the spec, I would recommend to
have a look to the Stream API of other modern languages and how those API
evolved over time. Streams exist for a very long time, it would be very
unfortunate to repeat on the web platform the mistakes already made and
fixed the hard way in competing platforms.
| Agreement to this proposal: a) indicates support for publishing a new
| WD; and b) does not necessarily indicate support of the contents of the
Then, I agree to publish a new Working Draft, but this draft will need much
futher refinement before being a w3c-recommendable specification.