On 3/28/2012 1:03 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Charles Pritchard <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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
