W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2011

[Bug 12320] ECMAScript binding forbids using ECMAScript to implement many interfaces.

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:07:26 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1PzysI-0005vg-Cb@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12320

--- Comment #3 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 2011-03-16 22:07:25 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> Then you need to specify the actual requirements rather than hiding them behind
> some broad prohibitive on using a specific implementation language.
> 
> For example for appendChild you might say that the argument Node must be an
> object that was created as if by called some list of specified methods that
> would include createElement and others. 

That could work but would require such language in a very large set of
functions. Very likely leading to people forgetting this all over leading to
confusion and possibly even inconsistencies across implementations.

> Or you might define a categorization of object such as "trusted DOM object"
> that means something over and beyond just implemented a certain interface.
> You when then require that certain arguments in addition to implementing
> some interface must also be trusted DOM objects.

That is what we've done. Or at least that's what I believe the spec is
attempting to do. Anything that isn't explicitly marked "[Callback]" is
required to be a "trusted DOM object".

I'm all for improving the wording though if you have suggestions (and assuming
Cameron is ok with it since I'm not an editor).

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:07:27 UTC

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