- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 09:42:16 +0100
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org> wrote: > Where is the "overhead necessary", exactly? If it's all over the place, > we'll have a problem with developers and implementors, who won't want to > bottleneck on (re-)checking all the time. I listed the APIs this affects. They are indeed mostly when things hit the wire such as URLs and networking. > We'd want a checked type to formalize (if possible) that the re-checking has > been minimized for a given implementation. > > But why are we checking at all? JS allows naughty strings to be formed, but > if there's a wire protocol that forbids them, then the API to speak that > protocol should hide the detail of the implementation doing the checking. > Push the checking out to the edge of the system where i/o happens. Yeah, this is about those APIs... Anyway, "string" was already vetoed last time around and we do indeed want to use DOMString mostly, UTFString seems fine for the cases that remain, or maybe CPString. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 08:42:44 UTC