W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2009

Re: Notes from Monday's meeting with TC39 folks

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:47:45 +0200
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u1iypv0a64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:58:05 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
> Maciej Stachowiak:
>> I see. I guess the only inconvenience currently is that you have to
>> name the interface to be added and that it causes the weird mixin
>> prototype behavior. In WebKit, we'll likely combine all [Supplemental]
>> interfaces into the main interface. It would be nice if specs had a
>> mechanism that is observationally equivalent to writing it all as one
>> interface, at least for purposes of the ECMAScript binding.
>
> Yes, I think that’d be the solution.  I think putting [Supplemental] on
> the ‘implements’ statement makes sense because that’s where mixin
> interfaces are going to be specified.  In fact, it might make sense for
> ‘implements’ statements to always imply [Supplemental] and to mix in
> their properties to the LHS interface’s prototype object.

Or maybe have

   interface supplements Document {
     ...
   };

so you do not have to invent a new name for the interface and use some  
other trick to hide it from the global object.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 08:48:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC