- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:22:57 -0800
- To: Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>
- CC: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, Webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@google.com>
On 1/11/2012 3:12 PM, Kenneth Russell wrote: > The StringEncoding proposal is the best path forward because it > provides correct behavior in all cases. Adding String conversions > directly to the typed array spec will introduce dependencies that are > strongly undesirable, and make it much harder to implement the core > spec. Hopefully Josh can provide an update on how the StringEncoding > proposal is going. Looking forward to it. I'm not particularly worried about the dependencies, but, what I proposed is likely to do the wrong thing. I'd want the DOMString processed as a UTF8 string, and at that point, we're stepping out of the way that other Web Apps APIs operate. Is base64 encoding at all appropriate for a StringEncoding type? Browser implementations of atob are not very good, and it's an extra step to run StringEncoding(atob()). -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 23:30:09 UTC