On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:55:58 +0200, David Flanagan
da...@davidflanagan.com wrote:
I doubt I understand all the implementation issues. But if there really
is some reason to have this blob/non-blob decision point before calling
send(), can I suggest that instead of confusing the XHR API with
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:55:58 +0200, David Flanagan da...@davidflanagan.com
wrote:
I doubt I understand all the implementation issues. But if there really
is some reason to have this blob/non-blob decision point before
Hi All,
I now consider the agenda for WebApps' meeting on Tuesday November 2 as
confirmed and the agenda items for that day have not changed for a few
weeks:
http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/TPAC2010#Tuesday.2C_November_2
On Monday November 1, the widgets group will meet with WAI's
On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:25:20 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net
wrote:
In http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/CR-XMLHttpRequest-20100803/ section
3.7.5. does not explicitly call out that the bytes corresponding to
the Unicode signature are treated as Unicode signature and are thus
stripped from
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:08:07 +0200, Anne van Kesteren ann...@opera.com
wrote:
Brainstorming here. We could choose to always expose resonseArrayBuffer
and keep it together with responseText and responseXML. And for
applications that are worried about memory usage or care about very
large
Cameron McCormack:
I don’t know that sequence is appropriate for this. They are meant
to be for pass-by-value lists.
Anne van Kesteren:
I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate a bit?
As currently defined, sequence types are used solely to represent lists
of values, and not objects
On 10/29/10, Cameron McCormack c...@mcc.id.au wrote:
Cameron McCormack:
I don’t know that sequence is appropriate for this. They are meant
to be for pass-by-value lists.
Anne van Kesteren:
I'm not sure I follow this. Could you elaborate a bit?
As currently defined, sequence types are
On 10/28/10 11:29 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Personally I like the proposed responseType solution.
The one where you pick one up front and it throws if you ask for
something else, right?
I agree that it has a downside in that it doesn't allow figuring out
the type as data starts coming in.
