On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 4/11/12 5:41 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: >> >> Sending an ArrayBufferView would still have to use "arraybuffer" as >> the type of data. I don't think it would be a good idea to try to >> instantiate the same subclass of ArrayBufferView on the receiving >> side. > > > I'm not sure what this means...
What I mean is that if somehow a browser were on the receiving end of one of these messages, the type of the incoming message should still be "arraybuffer". > For XHR.send(), sending an ArrayBufferView should take the byte array that > the ArrayBufferView is mapping, and send that. It's possible to achieve the > same thing now with some hoop jumping involving a possible buffer copy; I'm > just saying we should remove the need for that hoop jumping. Agree that these should be the semantics. > I haven't looked at WebSocket in enough detail to comment intelligently on > it. I haven't really either, but if there were some peer-to-peer support, then the receiving peer should still get an ArrayBuffer even if the sender sent an ArrayBufferView. -Ken