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

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:38:56 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B383847C571@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> 
> On 9/28/12 4:28 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> > 1. Should we make it so that if you implement one or more partial
> > interfaces but not the actual one, then an empty actual interface is
> > implied?
> 
> That's fine by me.
> 
> > 2. Is it really important to avoid a prototype from existing on URL in
> > this case?  I think I'd rather just leave it exist.
> 
> I think the idea is to allow object-detection of whether the URL spec is
> supported.

It seems more important to check for the features of the spec, rather than spec support in general. I would expect if (URL.createObjectURL) for example. I also think .prototype removal need not be a special case for
this circumstance.
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 16:39:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:07 UTC