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

Re: Removing 'caller' from WebIDL

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:35:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+c2ei-xcYJZ-6Lm=7jZMMgt2hj1f9eVD1rRj7n5VSke-EB6Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:08:59 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:
>>
>> I'm open to removing "caller" from Web IDL if people think that's best,
>> and I'd be happy to suggest wording to be added to the HTML spec to handle
>> the cases that do need to remain.
>
> I think we should keep it in IDL because it needs to be implemented, but if
> we do not want to spread it lets just name it "legacycaller" instead (and
> likewise prefix all other problematic constructs with "legacy").

Given that it's only been shown to be needed for a single API
(document.all), what is the advantage of having the prose in the
WebIDL spec, rather than in the HTML5 spec?

/ Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 08:36:16 UTC

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