W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2010

RE: Omitting prototype objects for some interfaces (was: Re: Thoughts on ES5 binding modifications)

From: Travis Leithead <travil@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:25:49 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3824029E@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
I think the use-cases for adding a new attribute (e.g., InterfaceObjectOnly) are small. Typically, what is needed in specifications is support for the various flavors of [Callback]. Also, I think the implementation of NodeFilter may actually be [Callback] in some implementations?

Anyway, this is largely an esoteric thing. To address the legacy behavior (if you think we need to), I believe a simple caveat expressed in WebIDL's prose would be sufficient, perhaps even citing one of these scenarios as an example.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:06 PM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
Subject: Omitting prototype objects for some interfaces (was: Re: Thoughts on ES5 binding modifications)

Just responding to one aspect of this (and culling the CC list)…

Travis Leithead:
> > Travis Leithead:
> > > > > * The ability to specify an “interface object only” interface
> > > > >   (e.g., NodeFilter, needed for the W3C DOM L2 Traversal spec)
> […]

Cameron McCormack:
> > OK, but I am not sure what specifying “interface object only” 
> > actually means, then. What would it change in the ES binding?  (The 
> > lack of a prototype object?)
> 
> Yes, exactly. In IE9 specifically, any "msInterfaceObjectOnly"
> annotated interface will not have a prototype property (or 
> corresponding interface prototype object), nor will support any 
> operations or attributes found on the interface (it ignores them).
> There are only three occurances of this annotation in IE9:
> * NodeFilter (ignores "acceptNode()" operation)
> * SVGUnitTypes
> * SVGZoomAndPan (ignores "zoomAndPan" property)
> 
> SVGRenderingIntent was also annotated this way, but is not supported 
> in IE9

OK, I understand now.  You want NodeFilter to exist, as well as the constants on it, but not NodeFilter.prototype, but Web IDL currently requires them all to exist.

Would adding wording saying that the prototype property and interface prototype object need only exist if there can be a host object that implements them be good enough to address this?  Or is it something you think specification writers should be noting (with an [InterfaceObjectOnly] or [NoPrototypeObject])?

--
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/


Received on Monday, 15 November 2010 18:26:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:03 UTC