- From: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:59:56 -0700
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Jonas Sicking wrote: > The APIs Anne listed falls into two categories: > > Things that do IO (websocket, XMLHttpRequest) > Things that convert the data to UTF8 (APIs that produce URLs, > TextEncoder which is a explicit UTF encoding API) > > So I think what you are proposing is exactly what is being done. Could be, but see my follow-up just sent. If we need to put a requirement on all implementations of a given interface defined in WebIDL, we still might choose not to add a new string type. Adding the string type seems to impose another pass over the string's code units in the JS binding implementation, when that pass might be combined with the implementation's pass over the code units. In general, it seems to pull an implementation requirement from inside and put it on the outside. And it adds a new IDL type. It's not a clean win in my view. Is there another way to annotate the interface to say "all implementations must satisfy requirement X"? IIRC we have precedent for this, not expressed via parameter types. /be
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 16:00:43 UTC