- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 12:14:14 -0400
- To: Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 7/9/14, 11:51 AM, Robin Berjon wrote:
> And if we could kill serializer with the same stone, all the better.
Serializer is a tad different.
The issue with stringifier is that it doesn't actually describe the
behavior. It just specifies that a toString method is created, but what
that toString method does has to be described in prose. So there is no
significant win over just having "toString" in the IDL with prose
describing the behavior, except in terms of language-independence.
For serializer, it can provide behavior, not just a function name. So
replacing it would involve a lot more prose.
On the other hand, I think serializer as currently specified is somewhat
over-engineered. In practice, Gecko implements only the "serializer = {
attribute };" form (and we give it a different name, "jsonifier", in our
IDL to make it clear that it's not the thing that's in the spec). This
is the form that most closely corresponds to what people may want when
they JSON.stringify an object in practice. Are there actual use cases
for the other forms that warrant having them in IDL?
-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 16:14:45 UTC