W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Should ByteString be a serializable type?

From: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:59:07 -0700
Cc: Norbert Lindenberg <ecmascript@lindenbergsoftware.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B3F44EBA-9B5B-4F1B-9AEA-DF0DF7854522@lindenbergsoftware.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
If I read the spec correctly, XMLHttpRequest is not serializable.


On Jul 28, 2013, at 11:25 , Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU> wrote:

> On 7/28/13 11:24 AM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote:
>> 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?
> It only needs to be serializable if we have objects that have HTTPLegacyByteString attributes and we want JSON.stringify on those objects to include those attributes, basically.
> -Boris
Received on Sunday, 28 July 2013 18:59:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:17 UTC