- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:29:12 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>
- Cc: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: > I can't seem to find a strong trace of this, but I was under the impression > that at some point we'd agreed that all legacy features in WebIDL should be > prefixed with "legacy" (as in legacycaller). It's not a bad idea, I think > people would definitely hesitate to plaster their new APIs with > LegacyByteString. As Jonas pointed out earlier, what would your solution be for APIs accepting methods or header names/values? ByteString seems the most convenient API-wise. Where ByteString is defined seems kinda immaterial, but having it in IDL makes matters more descriptive when you scan through the API. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 12:29:39 UTC