- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:46:09 +0100
- To: "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>
- Cc: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:42:11 +0100, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:25:44 +0100, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com> > wrote: >> This is yet another example of why WebIDL is a bad language for >> designing >> JavaScript APIs. The choices encouraged by WebIDL, and that seem >> natural in WebIDL, often result in bad JavaScript API designs. > > I'm not sure what you mean. We're not starting to reason based on Web > IDL. We're simply trying to extend a legacy API and I'm wondering how to > express that in Web IDL. And to be clear, we realize strict-equality and typeof will very likely (unless we'd break with ECMAScript) no longer return the same result. We've yet to evaluate whether that is feasible in practice. Having string members present is a minimum requirement for compatibility. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 19 February 2010 15:46:48 UTC