- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > On 14/07/11 1:44 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > > > I sort of feel we should just drop 'in' and patch the few specifications > > > that still use it. It is meaningless cruft and makes IDL fragments that > > > use it harder to read. > > > > I'm more sympathetic to this view now than I was before. I dislike the > > current situation where it is optional, and some spec writers use it and > > others don't. > > > > Will we ever need to add "inout" and "out" parameters? I think it's unlikely, > > given we're targeting JS here. > > > > So seeing no complaints, I've gone ahead and dropped "in". > > > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.339;r2=1.340;f=h > > > > For the purposes of tracking the Disposition of Comments on this Last Call > > Working Draft, could you indicate whether you are happy with the resolution of > > this issue. > > Any chance I could convince you to send me a diff for that? :-) For the record, this is now done, thanks to some help from heycam. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 00:16:57 UTC