[XHR2] Drop ByteArray?
I'm considering dropping ByteArray support. That is, removing support for it from send() and removing responseBody for now. At this point it's not really clear what the future of ByteArray is and it seems nobody is driving that work or implementing this feature from XMLHttpRequest Level 2. It would be nice to have access to the raw byte stream, as authors currently use ugly hacks to get to it, but higher level support for byte streams is somewhat of a prerequisite. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Re: [XHR2] Drop ByteArray?
On Oct 6, 2008, at 5:52 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: I'm considering dropping ByteArray support. That is, removing support for it from send() and removing responseBody for now. At this point it's not really clear what the future of ByteArray is and it seems nobody is driving that work or implementing this feature from XMLHttpRequest Level 2. It would be nice to have access to the raw byte stream, as authors currently use ugly hacks to get to it, but higher level support for byte streams is somewhat of a prerequisite. I will ask the ECMAScript committee what the plans are. I think we could just invent our own ByteArray or BinaryData interface, it would work better integrated into the language, but ImageData as a custom type works ok in practice. Regards, Maciej
Re: [XHR2] Drop ByteArray?
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:06:24 +0200, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I will ask the ECMAScript committee what the plans are. I think we could just invent our own ByteArray or BinaryData interface, it would work better integrated into the language, but ImageData as a custom type works ok in practice. Yeah, some collegues suggested it could indeed be as simple as CanvasPixelArray. Would be good to hear what the ECMAScript guys think. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
