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

Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:25:51 -0700
Message-ID: <51F5622F.7060104@mit.edu>
To: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 7/28/13 11:24 AM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
> 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?

It only needs to be serializable if we have objects that have 
HTTPLegacyByteString attributes and we want JSON.stringify on those 
objects to include those attributes, basically.

-Boris
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:26:24 UTC

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