Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) Reporter
	Description • 9 years ago

      No description provided.

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) Reporter
	Comment 1 • 9 years ago

Amoung other things this means we can test slightly more code if we want to.

	alexander :surkov (:asurkov)
	Comment 2 • 9 years ago

Comment on attachment 8600818 [details] [diff] [review]
handle IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_ALL in generic code

I tempted to remove its support at all https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) Reporter
	Comment 3 • 9 years ago

(In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 8600818 [details] [diff] [review]
> handle IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_ALL in generic code
> 
> I tempted to remove its support at all
> https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436

Supporting it doesn't really seem bad, but I'm happy to remove it if you'd rather that.

	alexander :surkov (:asurkov)
	Comment 4 • 9 years ago

(In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #3)
> (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #2)
> > Comment on attachment 8600818 [details] [diff] [review]
> > handle IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_ALL in generic code
> > 
> > I tempted to remove its support at all
> > https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
> 
> Supporting it doesn't really seem bad,

agree, as long as it stays in IA2, but I don't like to move it into XPCOM

> but I'm happy to remove it if you'd
> rather that.

let's try to get some feedback on it, if there are no known consumers then we are good to go I think

	Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) Reporter
	Comment 5 • 9 years ago

(In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #4)
> (In reply to Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde) from comment #3)
> > (In reply to alexander :surkov from comment #2)
> > > Comment on attachment 8600818 [details] [diff] [review]
> > > handle IA2_TEXT_BOUNDARY_ALL in generic code
> > > 
> > > I tempted to remove its support at all
> > > https://bugs.linuxfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=436
> > 
> > Supporting it doesn't really seem bad,
> 
> agree, as long as it stays in IA2, but I don't like to move it into XPCOM

I don't really have a problem with it being in the xpcom api, but I'll live with anything that doesn't make me deal with it specially for ipc stuff.