Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type? from Norbert Lindenberg on 2013-07-28 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2013)

From: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:24:12 -0700
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7EE32E8D-4160-4B7F-93F3-4DF878583F2F@lindenbergsoftware.com>

In our previous discussion of ByteString [1] I thought we had consensus that if ByteString exists at all then its only purpose is to help in the specification of APIs for poorly designed legacy parts of protocols such as HTTP. Why should HTTPLegacyByteString be serializable?

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/thread.html#msg56

Norbert

On Jul 28, 2013, at 11:01 , Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> DOMString is a serializable type, but ByteString doesn't seem to be. Should it be?
> 
> -Boris
>

Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:24:40 UTC