- From: David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:14:23 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-webapps@w3.org, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Geoffrey Garen <ggaren@apple.com>, Darin Fisher <darin@chromium.org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, michaeln@google.com, Alexey Proskuryakov <ap@webkit.org>, jorlow@google.com, jamesr@chromium.org
On 11/10/2010 03:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> >> So you prefer that .responseType take a string value as opposed to an >> integer enum value? Darin Fisher had the idea that introspection of the >> supported values would be easier as an enum. > > Yes, I think using an enum would be *extremely* verbose, particularly > given this particular API's name. I don't want to see or type code > like: > > myXHR.responseType = XMLHttpResponse.RESPONSETYPE_ARRAYBUFFER; > > This is much better: > > myXHR.responseType = "arraybuffer"; > > ~TJ You can have consise and introspectable values if the verbose constants have string values instead of integers, of course. David
Received on Thursday, 11 November 2010 01:15:52 UTC