- From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:03:37 +0300
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Jussi Kalliokoski > <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote: > > Another bad example of using strings for these kind of things, from much > > closer, is XHR's responseType where it's excruciatingly painful to try to > > detect for example whether responseType "json" (it may throw when you set > > it, it may result in the `error` event or it may silently fail and set > the > > JSON as string to response) is supported, let alone "arraybuffer". > > Those sound like bugs in the implementation. If a given value is not > supported, setting should not happen. (And in the case of to(), it'll > reject.) > Bugs indeed. > > > Feature detection is not the only concern though, another one is that it > > encourages putting a lot of complexity behind one flag (just like > > responseType) which is likely to lead to interoperability issues. > > It's not that much complexity really. > Fair enough. However, I'm curious as to what's the rationale behind having it all behind one function as opposed to a function per action? Cheers, Jussi > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Monday, 16 June 2014 13:04:04 UTC