[whatwg] Endianness of typed arrays
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