- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 17:05:52 +1200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On 31/08/11 2:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:32:03 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: >> On 8/30/11 3:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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 >> >> Where does it need to be implemented other than document.all? >> >> If it only needs to be implemented in one place, why does it need to >> be a general IDL-based mechanism? > > I guess if that is the only place it can be in HTML directly. (I thought > there was another, but I guess we removed that.) I like that you can see > it directly from the IDL-snippet, but I don't feel too strongly. The other collections in the HTML spec still do require callers (HTMLFormControlsCollection, HTMLOptionsCollection, HTMLPropertiesCollection and HTMLFormElement). I did raise http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11032 at some point about removing callers from HTMLPropertiesCollection but that ended up WONTFIX. Ian, are you sure we need callers on anything more than document.all?
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 05:06:37 UTC