W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Fetch API

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 01:26:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-RDtG5jwF9oAL76uwdhVpECxVPGXsb86vLpwHtD0VYVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Joshua Bell <jsbell@chromium.org>, Jungkee Song <jungkee.song@samsung.com>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Jake Archibald <jaffathecake@gmail.com>, Tobie Langel <tobie.langel@gmail.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Domenic Denicola
<domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that for both the HeaderMap constructor and any object-literal processing, the best solution for now is to just do things in prose...

I think the first thing we should decide on is what syntax we want JS
authors to be able to write.

How to then write this in the spec can be debated after. The
capability set of WebIDL should not dictate how we define the API
(other than that we should be very sure about what we're doing if we
go outside of what WebIDL recommends).

I'm still arguing that we shouldn't have a HeaderMap class at all, and
instead just use normal Map objects. And in places where we take a map
as an argument, also allow plain JS objects that are then enumerated.

/ Jonas
Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 08:27:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:24 UTC