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

Re: [WebIDL] cycles in [PutForward] chains

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:00:10 -0400
Message-ID: <501D7F4A.90606@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On 8/4/12 1:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

Indeed.  In Gecko's WebIDL bindings, we're simply treating every MUST or 
MUST NOT violation as a fatal error in the IDL and refusing to compile 
it, period.

I would personally be fine with making that a general WebIDL 
implementation requirement: that an implementation of an interface that 
violates the WebIDL specification simply not be possible; if one exists, 
it's an implementation bug (in addition to a bug in the relevant interface).

-Boris
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 20:00:44 UTC

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