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

Re: Vestiges of [Supplemental]

From: Travis Leithead <Travis.Leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:42:48 +0000
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, "ian@hixie.ch" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Jonas Sicking (jonas@sicking.cc)" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "simonp@opera.com" <simonp@opera.com>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3834CD43D3@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
>On 29/08/11 10:59 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>>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.

+1

This appears to be one of the only cases for [CopyInheritedPrototype] in WebIDL, and if we don't want/need this to be available anywhere else, I'd prefer not to have to support it.

-Travis
Received on Wednesday, 7 September 2011 23:43:17 UTC

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