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

Re: Vestiges of [Supplemental]

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:59:03 +1200
Message-ID: <4E5AC837.4070003@mcc.id.au>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On 12/08/11 2:03 AM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> I tend to agree with Jonas. There's no point in hiding the interface
> name from scripts, it's just a source of potential bugs and confusion.

I agree here too.  I don't see any particular advantage from avoiding 
using inheritance here without any messing around of prototypes.

If the prose in the spec is awkward because you would need to say "the 
DedicatedWorkerGlobalScope or SharedWorkerGlobalScope object" rather 
than just "the WorkerGlobalScope object", then I wouldn't worry and 
either introduce a term "worker global scope object" to mean that, or to 
reference it as "the WorkerGlobalScope object" given that the two more 
derived interfaces are actually WorkerGlobalScopes.

In http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10337 I had introduced 
[CopyInheritedPrototype] to satisfy this use case (and to avoid 
[Supplemental]) but I am beginning to think there's not a strong enough 
reason to have it.
Received on Sunday, 28 August 2011 22:59:48 UTC

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