This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 10389 - why onbitmap? onfile is enough. if you have onbitmap then why not put ondocument and onpdf and onxlsx and so on? onfile is enough
Summary: why onbitmap? onfile is enough. if you have onbitmap then why not put ondocum...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WHATWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HTML (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: Unsorted
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: contributor
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-08-18 14:32 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2012-07-18 18:42 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description contributor 2010-08-18 14:32:03 UTC
Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#peer-to-peer-connections

Comment:
why onbitmap? onfile is enough. if you have onbitmap then why not put
ondocument and onpdf and onxlsx and so on? onfile is enough

Posted from: 78.96.238.7
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-09-24 22:32:52 UTC
onbitmap is there to complement sendBitmap().

sendBitmap() is there because it is quite plausible that we'll need to send HTMLImageElements a lot (maybe HTMLCanvasElements too, but they can be better represented as HTMLImageElements on the receiving side), and it's a pain to have to get a File out of them first.

sendDocument/ondocument might make sense; what's the use case?

sendPDF/onpdf and sendXLSX/onxslx doesn't make much sense since those types aren't native types on the Web platform.