- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:29:37 -0700
On 3/28/2012 1:03 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck at jumis.com > <mailto:chuck at jumis.com>> wrote: > > I consider your position one of benevolent paternalism. You are > free to stick with it, and to apply it in your patch submissions. > > I've no desire to coddle low-level coders. They know what they're > getting into. > > > I'm not sure what you're getting at. I'm not making value judgements, > just observing "Web browsers on big-endian machines will have to > pretend to be little-endian as far as Web pages can observe" in order > to be compatible with Web content, and suggesting that we may as well > write specs in light of this fact. > Seems like a fine implementation note, but I'm still pushing back on the notion that the note ought to be a restriction. I didn't see anything restricting implementers, but if a note would help get your point across: "Implementers MAY choose to employ little-endian operations as authors may often neglect to test their applications in big-endian environments." You're suggesting that endianness be removed from the spec, because "most of them [developers] will get it wrong". That's a judgement. I don't disagree with the judgement. -Charles
Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2012 01:29:37 UTC