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

Re: ByteString in Web IDL

From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 15:39:16 +0200
Message-ID: <51DD6404.5030703@w3.org>
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

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