On Sep 8, 2010, at 9:44 AM, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 17:22:44 +0200, Chris Marrin <cmar...@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sep 8, 2010, at 12:13 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 01:09:13 +0200, Jian Li <jia...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Several specs, like File API and WebGL, use ArrayBuffer, while other spec, >>>> like XMLHttpRequest Level 2, use ByteArray. Should we change to use the >>>> same name all across our specs? Since we define ArrayBuffer in the Typed >>>> Arrays spec ( >>>> https://cvs.khronos.org/svn/repos/registry/trunk/public/webgl/doc/spec/TypedArray-spec.html), >>>> should we favor ArrayBuffer? >>>> >>>> In addition, can we consider adding ArrayBuffer support to BlobBuilder, >>>> FormData, and XMLHttpRequest.send()? >>> >>> So TC39 is going to leave this thing alone? I.e. are we sure ArrayBuffer is >>> the way of the future? >> >> ArrayBuffer certainly has momentum behind it. It started as a part of the >> WebGL spec as a way of passing buffers of data of various types (sometimes >> heterogeneous types) to the WebGL engine. Since then, it has found uses in >> the Web Audio proposal, the File API and there has been talk in using it as >> a way to pass data to Web Workers. > > Do you mean WebSockets?
Web Sockets is certainly another candidate, but I meant Web Workers. There have been informal discussions on using ArrayBuffers as a way to safely share binary data between threads. I don't believe anything has been formalized here. ----- ~Chris cmar...@apple.com
