W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: [WebIDL] cycles in [PutForward] chains

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:33:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBT7_F15WTsOH_2SwAK1px4r+TDLku=L33OtAFQcMXa7g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> In [1], the following language appears:
>
>> Note that [PutForwards]-annotated attributes can be chained. That is, an
>> attribute with the [PutForwards] extended attribute can refer to an
>> attribute that itself has that extended attribute. Theremust not exist a
>> cycle in a chain of forwarded assignments. A cycle exists if, when following
>> the chain of forwarded assignments, a particular attribute on an interface
>> is encountered more than once.
>
>
> While this states that a cycle must not exist, it fails to define
> implementation behavior regarding cycle detection and action in the presence
> of a cycle. If this is intentionally left undefined, perhaps that should be
> stated.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#PutForwards

Since the audience for that requirement is spec authors themselves, I
think the presence of a bare MUST NOT is sufficient.  If a spec author
violates it, someone can point it out to them, and they can change the
spec.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 17:34:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:06 UTC