[whatwg] Endianness of typed arrays
bzbarsky at MIT.EDU
Wed Mar 28 01:05:16 PDT 2012
On 3/28/12 12:59 AM, Charles Pritchard wrote:
> I've no desire to coddle low-level coders. They know what they're
> getting into.
You're making the mistake of thinking that people using typed arrays are
"low-level coders", whereas in reality everyone and their mother is
being told to use the arraybuffer response type on XHR to load all sorts
And it's not a matter of "coddling". It's a matter of writing specs
that are actually useful. Right now, a big-endian UA that implemented
the typed array spec as written would be pretty broken on a number of
sites, because people are using typed arrays for all sorts of things
outside their original WebGL context. As typed array support becomes
even more common in browsers, this problem will only get worse.
The general position of this group, indeed the main reason for its
existence, is that specs should reflect reality and that a spec that is
deliberately misleading in terms of what it takes to achieve
interoperable behavior is not much better than no spec at all (and is
arguably worse than no spec at all).
You are, of course, entitled to disagree, but I would like to understand
the reasons why you think deliberately misleading specs are a good idea...
More information about the whatwg