- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:05:16 -0700
On 3/28/12 12:59 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote: > I've no desire to coddle low-level coders. They know what they're > getting into. You're making the mistake of thinking that people using typed arrays are "low-level coders", whereas in reality everyone and their mother is being told to use the arraybuffer response type on XHR to load all sorts of data. And it's not a matter of "coddling". It's a matter of writing specs that are actually useful. Right now, a big-endian UA that implemented the typed array spec as written would be pretty broken on a number of sites, because people are using typed arrays for all sorts of things outside their original WebGL context. As typed array support becomes even more common in browsers, this problem will only get worse. The general position of this group, indeed the main reason for its existence, is that specs should reflect reality and that a spec that is deliberately misleading in terms of what it takes to achieve interoperable behavior is not much better than no spec at all (and is arguably worse than no spec at all). You are, of course, entitled to disagree, but I would like to understand the reasons why you think deliberately misleading specs are a good idea... -Boris
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 01:05:16 UTC