- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2012 01:47:20 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16604 --- Comment #8 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2012-04-06 01:47:18 UTC --- Bits, bytes, words and longs, how many were going to St Ives? octet came from OMG IDL, where it already meant an unsigned 8 bit integer type. When we needed to introduce a signed type, because OMG IDL didn't have one, I used byte because Java's byte type is signed, rather than introduce "signed octet". I agree the current names are a bit sucky, though. But I'm not really in favour of introducing synonyms. Seeing different names for the same concept in different specs, depending on the style preferences of the author, will be confusing. I think there are sufficiently few specs using byte that updating them if we decide to change the names will be easy enough. (It might even just be WebGL and the Typed Arrays spec.) If people think the status quo is unacceptable, then I think my next preference would be to have "byte" and "signed byte", or "octet" and "signed octet". The former looks and sounds nicer, but the latter more strongly feels like something unsigned to me. (And true enough maybe technically a byte doesn't imply 8 bits necessarily, but I don't think it's a real enough concern.) -- 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 Friday, 6 April 2012 01:47:23 UTC