On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Adrian Bateman <adria...@microsoft.com>wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 11:46 AM, Chris Prince wrote: > > >> 1. Most people that I talk to dislike the name Blob, much less having > > >> it spread to things like BlobReader. > > > > I could maybe understand this if "blob" were a new term we were > > inventing. But it's not. It's a well-known computer science concept. > > It seems worse to try and coin a totally new name for "opaque chunk > > of data". > > > > FWIW, "most people" hating the name blob seems like a stretch, as it > > has not been my experience. But maybe we run in different circles. > > This was addressed to me although quoting Jonas. > > One of the problems I've experienced is that in general the well-known > computer > science concept doesn't have a URL that can be used to stream data into > another > object. It's feasible to use the Blob interface in circumstances where the > bits > of the "blob" aren't manifested until they are actually used. Some concepts > from > the Media Capture API seem to be heading in this direction. > We've reformed the api that provides a url such that it's no longer an attribute of the Blob instance. Instead there's a method of the window' that binds the contents of the Blob to a url that is valid for the lifetime of the window object or until the url is revoked via another window method. > > That said, I don't have a problem with the name Blob. :o) > > Me neither. > Cheers, > > Adrian. > >