On Thu, 18 Aug 2011, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Chris Rogers wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, it would be good to get Ian's opinion about this since he's
> >> working on similar stuff with Web Sockets.
> >
> > Right now WebSockets onl
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Chris Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Also, it would be good to get Ian's opinion about this since he's
>> working on similar stuff with Web Sockets.
>
> Right now WebSockets only works with complete messages, there's no
> streaming su
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Chris Rogers wrote:
>
> Also, it would be good to get Ian's opinion about this since he's
> working on similar stuff with Web Sockets.
Right now WebSockets only works with complete messages, there's no
streaming support. I suspect that if we add streaming support to the
pro
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Chris Rogers wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
>> there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
>>
>> Using .responseType="te
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
> there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
>
> Using .responseType="text" you can read the contents of the data as
> soon as it comes in,
On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 21:18:43 +0200, Charles Pritchard
wrote:
On 8/12/11 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Before we add yet another set of features, when are we going to attempt
to get interoperability on the current feature set?
Some time after adding another set of features, I'd imagine.
On 8/12/11 12:03 PM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:13:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking
wrote:
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
Before we add yet another set of features, when are we go
On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 02:13:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking wrote:
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
Before we add yet another set of features, when are we going to attempt to
get interoperability on the
Hi Charles,
Le 10/08/2011 23:19, Charles Pritchard a écrit :
On 8/9/2011 1:00 AM, Cyril Concolato wrote:
Hi Charles,
I believe that GPAC seeks through large SVG files via offsets and small
buffers, from what I understood at SVG F2F.
http://gpac.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
The technique is simila
On 8/10/2011 5:04 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
The point of streamed XHR is to receive data as soon as it's available
so that you can process it right away. This also means that you're
likely going to get the data in pretty small chunks. Hence the use
cases for streaming are basically the direct oppo
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:36 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
> On 8/8/11 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> To solve this I propose we add two new values to .responseType:
>> "streaming-text" and "streaming-arraybuffer".
>
> I think this would be a very useful feature. I only have naming nits:
>
> 1) W
On 8/9/2011 1:00 AM, Cyril Concolato wrote:
Hi Charles,
I believe that GPAC seeks through large SVG files via offsets and
small buffers, from what I understood at SVG F2F.
http://gpac.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
The technique is similar to what PDF has in it's spec.
I don't know what you're refer
Hi Charles,
I believe that GPAC seeks through large SVG files via offsets and small
buffers, from what I understood at SVG F2F.
http://gpac.wp.institut-telecom.fr/
The technique is similar to what PDF has in it's spec.
I don't know what you're referring to.
SVG does not have byte offset hint
On 8/8/11 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
To solve this I propose we add two new values to .responseType:
"streaming-text" and "streaming-arraybuffer".
I think this would be a very useful feature. I only have naming nits:
1) What do you think of "textstream" instead of "streaming-text"?
Simila
On 8/8/2011 5:59 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
...
Agreed
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
>> there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
>
> ...
> Agreed. I proposed something si
On 8/8/2011 5:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
Hi All,
XHR Level 2 does wonders for making XMLHttpRequest better. However
there is one problem that we have run into with "streaming" data.
...
Agreed. I proposed something similar in January, with fixed buffer lengths:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Pub
On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> Another solution would to make sure to always fire a "progress" event
> for the last data before firing the "load" event. I personally like
> this approach more. There *might* even be reasons to do that to ensure
> that pages create progress
18 matches
Mail list logo
