W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: [webidl] definition of const string literal

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 03:07:27 -0700
Message-ID: <63df84f0904290307p57285894o60ff59723733425@mail.gmail.com>
To: timeless@gmail.com
Cc: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:21 AM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>> (Also I see that you’re using the “string” and “wstring”, and L"wide
>> string" values.  Are you of the opinion that Web IDL should introduce
>> those instead of DOMString?)
>
> Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com> wrote:
>> In my opinion, it would be nice if we can use the keyword 'string' as
>> the same meaning of 'DOMString' in Web IDL since it's not only for DOM
>> specifications.
>
> this would be a serious problem for mozilla. In mozilla, 'string' and
> 'wstring' mean things very different from DOMString, and we can't
> change that.

I don't think it'd be a big problem actually. It'd just mean that we
couldn't use WebIDL directly internally. However I doubt that we'll
end up doing that anyway.

The big win with WebIDL is that it gives an unambigious specification
for an interface. Not that it allows us to copy part of the spec into
our implementation.

/ Jonas
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2009 10:08:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:31 GMT