- From: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:46:02 +0100
- To: "Michael[tm] Smith" <mike@w3.org>
- CC: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>, Brian Kardell <bkardell@gmail.com>, Thaddee Tyl <thaddee.tyl@gmail.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On 28/02/2013 15:34 , Michael[tm] Smith wrote: > I think there's a case where a spec could (and probably should) define > normative requirements for processing of the data that's sent to the > console, without necessarily defining exactly how it must be displayed. > > The case that I think might benefit from having some processing behavior > specified follows from the fact that the first argument of some console > methods either might be a printf-like format string or it might be some > other object (maybe a normal string or maybe something else). Oh definitely, the behaviour of finding how many sprintf tokens there are and replacing them with the n first objects (which then are consumed and not sent to the console) is definitely important. I was just objecting to the idea that the API would be text-only. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 15:46:14 UTC