Re: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional? from Boris Zbarsky on 2012-09-21 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2012)

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 13:01:38 -0400
To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <505C9D72.60303@mit.edu>

On 9/21/12 12:39 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> I believe that firstly, the File API spec needs to be rationalized against the URL API

They're already there.  File API explicitly says that if you support URL 
API then you get a normal interface object and proto object.

> Once that happens, I wonder if there are any other lingering objects for which the "prototype-less" interface object would be needed.

Well, any interface that only has static stuff and no actual objects 
that implement it, right?

-Boris

Received on Friday, 21 September 2012 17:02:10 UTC