| 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 WD.

Then, I agree to publish a new Working Draft, but this draft will need much futher refinement before being a w3c-recommendable specification.

Reply via email to