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

Re: [webidl] definition of const string literal

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:36:37 +1000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Cc: timeless@gmail.com, Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20090614173637.GD3369@arc.mcc.id.au>
Cameron McCormack:
> (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:
> 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.

Josh Soref:
> 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.

Jonas Sicking:
> 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.

I’m going to leave the name of the type as DOMString.  Even though it’s
not the best name for a fundamental string type, I’d like to avoid
conflicting with the definitions of string or wstring.

Thanks,

Cameron

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Sunday, 14 June 2009 17:37:27 GMT

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