- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:39:16 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- CC: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 10/07/2013 14:29 , Anne van Kesteren wrote: > 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. It's just a name, nothing keeps you from using it if you know what you're doing — it's just about scaring off people who don't. Besides, you might need ByteStrings in a new API, but only if you're interfacing with some form of legacy content. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 13:39:32 UTC