Re: Removal of identifierless getters, setters, etc. from Anne van Kesteren on 2010-10-13 (public-script-coord@w3.org from October to December 2010)

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:42:59 +0200
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Sam Weinig" <weinig@apple.com>
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vkic9wd064w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 01:08:19 +0200, Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>> Would the idea here be to given all of these an identifier but to
>> declare them as omittable (so that in JS real method wouldn’t exist on
>> these objects anyway)?
>
> Yeah.

Why can't we do this at the binding level of languages without the  
ability? Or maybe some generic prose in the Web IDL specification. Not  
sure it is worth making all the definitions more complex as these APIs are  
primarily concerned with ECMAScript anyway. (For certain languages you  
might very well want different APIs.)

-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/

Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 09:44:00 UTC