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

Re: [WebIDL] prototype chains, multiple inheritance, mixin interfaces

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:38:08 +0100
To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vmoaltl764w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:45:20 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:
> Here is my proposal then.  For both the “editorial” case (like how the
> deprecated members of HTMLBodyElement are separated in HTML5 from the
> rest purely for editorial reasons) and the “extension” case as in the
> above CSSOM and DOM Parser examples, we allow interfaces to be extended:
>
>   // in DOM Core
>   interface Element : Node {
>     DOMString getAttribute(in DOMString name);
>     …
>   };
>
>   // in DOM Parser
>   extend interface Element {
>     void insertAdjacentHTML(DOMString position, DOMString text);
>     …
>   };
>
> We would still allow mixin interfaces to be defined and then used with
> “implements” statements for cases where they really are more like
> separate interfaces.
>
> WDYT?

Looks good to me.


> [I don’t particularly like “supplemental” as the keyword to use, as it
> sounds like it’s really a separate interface – more like the mixin case.
> Although I am not that happy with “extend”, either, as it sounds more
> like a command than some declarative statement of fact like “implements”
> does.  Bikeshedding welcome! :)]

"extends"? :-)


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:39:14 UTC

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