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

Re: [WebIDL] troublesome names, property attributes and related issues

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 22:19:55 +0200
To: "Allen Wirfs-Brock" <allen@wirfs-brock.com>
Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.v0t73hktidj3kv@simon-pieterss-macbook.local>
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:43:11 +0200, Allen Wirfs-Brock  
<allen@wirfs-brock.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 26, 2011, at 4:00 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:15:20 +0200, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>  
>> wrote:
>> ...
>> It's ELEMENT_NODE, not NODE_ELEMENT. :-)
>
> so much for late night typing...
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Ah, ELEMENT_NODE doesn't live on the Document interface, it lives on
>>> the Node interface. So both the Node constructor and all instances of
>>> the Node interface (such as document) have the ELEMENT_NODE property.
>>>
>>> I'm not married to having instances contain constants though. If no
>>> other browsers do that, then it's likely not required for webcompat
>>> and could be dropped.
>>
>> javascript:alert(document.ELEMENT_NODE)
>>
>> alerts 1 in firefox, chrome and opera. I think it's likely required for  
>> web compat.
>
>
> I agree.  My original point was regarding whether the replication of  
> constants on both interface objects and interface prototype object be  
> wired into WebIDL (as it current is specified) or should it be done  
> explicitly on a case by case basis  where it is needed for web compat  
> for existing APIs.

I don't see the advantage in introducing an inconsistency between existing  
APIs and new APIs here. I think it would confuse authors who are used to  
now constants work in existing APIs and expect them to be the same in new  
APIs.


> For example we could allow a "static" prefix on const definitions in  
> which case Node might be coded as:
>
> interface Node {
>    ...
>    const unsigned short ELEMENT_NODE = 1;
>    static const unsigned short ELEMENT_NODE = 1;
>    ...
> }
>
> making it explicit that ELEMENT_NODE exists "on both sides".  New API's  
> could be encouraged to adopted the more normal ECMAScript convention and  
> only define the "static" constant.

Could you cite an example of a constant that follows that convention? (Is  
the convention to define the constant on the interface object or on the  
prototype?)

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Friday, 26 August 2011 20:20:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:04 UTC