On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com wrote:
I skimmed the thread before starting this and saw that you were pointing out
some issues but didn't think you're opposing so much.
Well yes. I removed integration from XMLHttpRequest a while back too.
Let me check
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Feras Moussa feras.mou...@hotmail.com wrote:
Can you please go into a bit more detail? I've read through the thread, and
it mostly focuses on the details of how a Stream is received from XHR and
what behaviors can be expected - it only lightly touches on how you
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Hallvord Reiar Michaelsen Steen
hallv...@opera.com wrote:
Anonymous mode still seems like useless complexity to me, so I'm still in
favour of dropping it.
Right. I don't really get the feeling you're considering the arguments
carefully and since nobody else
Hi Anne,
chair hat on
Please stick to the technical discussion without making assertions about
people's motives or actions for which you don't have concrete evidence.
chair hat off
On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:53:08 +0400, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl
wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Charles McCathie Nevile
cha...@yandex-team.ru wrote:
With respect to your use case for keeping anonymous I agree with Hallvord. I
cannot think of a real use case for a browser-like thing that accepts
arbitrary URLs. Could you please provide some more
Sorry, I just took over this work and so was misunderstanding some point in
the Streams API spec.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:14 PM, Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com
wrote:
I skimmed the thread before starting this
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Takeshi Yoshino tyosh...@google.com wrote:
I thought the spec is clear about this but sorry it isn't. In the spec we
should say that StreamReader invalidates consumed data in Stream and buffer
for the invalidated bytes will be released at that point. Right?
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
The main problem is that Stream per Streams API is not what you expect
from an IO stream, but it's more what Blob should've been (Blob
without synchronous size). What we want I think is a real IO stream.
If we also
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19771
Gary Kacmarcik gary...@google.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gary...@google.com,
I figured I should chime in with some ideas of my own because, well, why not :-)
First off, I definitely think the semantic model of a Stream shouldn't
be a Blob without a size, but rather a Blob without a size that you
can only read from once. I.e. the implementation should be able to
discard
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Jonas Sicking jo...@sicking.cc wrote:
For Stream reading, I think I would do something like the following:
interface Stream {
AbortableProgressFutureArrayBuffer readBinary(optional unsigned
long long size);
AbortableProgressFutureString readText(optional
11 matches
Mail list logo
