On 28/06/07, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 05:57:09 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> > wrote: > >> For sequence<octet> it would be really nice if we could have a more > >> native representation of a byte array than a UTF-16 string. > > > > Strange, I really should have used sequence<unsignedshort> there. > > Fixed. > > > > I still am a little unsettled by the special casing of > > sequence<unsignedshort> for string values. > > > > We could revisit the decision not to use wstring, and just state that > > wstrings must be sequences of UTF-16 code units, and that they can > > include 0x0000. > > It would still be very good to have an octet / byte representation in > ECMAScript. I'm aware of a couple of implementations of such a thing, but > I haven't been able to play with them or figure out how they work exactly > myself: > > 1. XMLHttpRequest has a responseBody member in Internet Explorer 7 that > returns an array of unsigned integers representing octets. > > Likewise, the send() method accepts such an array. > > 2. I heard Adobe Flex has some notion of a byte array to represent files. Maybe ES4 can come to the rescue here: <uri:http://developer.mozilla.org/es4/proposals/bytearray.html> -- David "liorean" AnderssonReceived on Thursday, 28 June 2007 11:05:45 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:57 GMT