10389 2010-08-18 14:32:03 +0000 why onbitmap? onfile is enough. if you have onbitmap then why not put ondocument and onpdf and onxlsx and so on? onfile is enough 2012-07-18 18:42:14 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#peer-to-peer-connections P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian ian mike public-html-admin contributor oldest_to_newest 37613 0 contributor 2010-08-18 14:32:03 +0000 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 39318 1 ian 2010-09-24 22:32:52 +0000 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.