W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: ByteString in Web IDL

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:29:12 -0400
Message-ID: <CADnb78ibVEJVwVzKKssatryzpR0Gg-pg2cPCffA=zvZ6uAB7Ng@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote:
> I can't seem to find a strong trace of this, but I was under the impression
> that at some point we'd agreed that all legacy features in WebIDL should be
> prefixed with "legacy" (as in legacycaller). It's not a bad idea, I think
> people would definitely hesitate to plaster their new APIs with
> LegacyByteString.

As Jonas pointed out earlier, what would your solution be for APIs
accepting methods or header names/values? ByteString seems the most
convenient API-wise. Where ByteString is defined seems kinda
immaterial, but having it in IDL makes matters more descriptive when
you scan through the API.


--
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 12:29:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:50 UTC