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

Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type?

From: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:24:12 -0700
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7EE32E8D-4160-4B7F-93F3-4DF878583F2F@lindenbergsoftware.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
In our previous discussion of ByteString [1] I thought we had consensus that if ByteString exists at all then its only purpose is to help in the specification of APIs for poorly designed legacy parts of protocols such as HTTP. Why should HTTPLegacyByteString be serializable?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/thread.html#msg56

Norbert


On Jul 28, 2013, at 11:01 , Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> DOMString is a serializable type, but ByteString doesn't seem to be. Should it be?
> 
> -Boris
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:24:40 UTC

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