- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:11:42 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16604 --- Comment #4 from Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com> 2012-04-03 22:11:41 UTC --- short and unsigned short already exist in Web IDL and map to C's int16 / uint16. Those typedefs are also needed for the typed array spec and likely elsewhere. "tiny" / "tiny int" and unsigned variants could work. Not sure about the potential for namespace collisions with existing code. Changing byte to be an unsigned type has downsides. It requires updating all existing HTML5 specs which refer to that type, and would imply introducing a "signed byte" type which is again asymmetric with how the other integer types in Web IDL behave. I would still prefer "byte" and "unsigned byte", but would also prefer the pair of types "signed byte" and "byte" over introducing a new "tiny" concept. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 22:11:45 UTC