On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:56:13 +0100, Charles Pritchard <ch...@jumis.com>
wrote:
But in the present, we've got XMLHttpRequest, with CORS semantics, and
all other manner of goodness.
EventSource seems to me, to have different use cases than the simpler
XHR.
Yes, it is meant for streaming. XMLHttpRequest isn't really. (And
EventSource will get CORS in due course.)
XHR is a pretty stable and well supported method, it seems that it'd be
reasonably straightforward
to take the current good-will around that standard, and see if a second
ArrayBuffer response type is warranted.
I rather wait until all the new features are more widely adopted and
tested. Then we can see if they have been a success and if we need more.
One nice thing to come out of it, saving a large file to a disk via XHR
and FileWriter would be made
much easier, with no need for temporary storage locations.
Even with blob saved to disk, it'd take a lot of special case
optimizations to make it efficient to copy
that Blob to a new file. It'd likely require a copy, instead of what's
likely wanted: writing the file once.
Developing this now could have a positive effect on a future EventSource
standard.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
