Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? from Boris Zbarsky on 2013-07-28 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013)

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

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