On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Chris Rogers <crog...@google.com> wrote: > Hi David, > Sorry for the delayed response. I think the idea of BinaryHttpRequest is a > reasonable one. As you point out, it simply side-steps any potential > performance and compatibility issues. Are you imagining that the API is > effectively the same as XMLHttpRequest, except without the text and XML > part? > How do other people feel about David's proposal?
I'm in favor a new constructor. It seems silly to first hack ourselves into a corner by extending an API designed for text or XML, then try to hack our way out of the problems that causes. A new object that does what's needed seems like the cleanest and most correct solution to the problem. ~TJ