Cameron McCormack: > (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: > 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. Josh Soref: > 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. Jonas Sicking: > 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. I’m going to leave the name of the type as DOMString. Even though it’s not the best name for a fundamental string type, I’d like to avoid conflicting with the definitions of string or wstring. Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
