[whatwg] Endianness of typed arrays

Charles Pritchard chuck at jumis.com
Wed Mar 28 01:29:37 PDT 2012

On 3/28/2012 1:03 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Charles Pritchard <chuck at jumis.com 
> <mailto:chuck at jumis.com>> 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.


More information about the whatwg mailing list