On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:21 AM, timeless <[email protected]> wrote: > Cameron McCormack <[email protected]> wrote: >> (Also I see that you’re using the “string” and “wstring”, and L"wide >> string" values. Are you of the opinion that Web IDL should introduce >> those instead of DOMString?) > > Shiki Okasaka <[email protected]> wrote: >> In my opinion, it would be nice if we can use the keyword 'string' as >> the same meaning of 'DOMString' in Web IDL since it's not only for DOM >> specifications. > > this would be a serious problem for mozilla. In mozilla, 'string' and > 'wstring' mean things very different from DOMString, and we can't > change that.
I don't think it'd be a big problem actually. It'd just mean that we couldn't use WebIDL directly internally. However I doubt that we'll end up doing that anyway. The big win with WebIDL is that it gives an unambigious specification for an interface. Not that it allows us to copy part of the spec into our implementation. / Jonas
