W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2014

Re: partial interfaces, [NoInterfaceObject]

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 15:37:26 -0500
Message-ID: <52FE7E86.80609@mit.edu>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 2/14/14 2:29 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> On 2/14/14 12:51 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> These are black-box indistinguishable, as far as I understand.
>>
>> That .... depends.  If there's a method around that takes a
>> NavigatorGeolocation parameter, that's a reasonable thing to do with the
>> "implements" approach but not the partial interface approach.
>
> Sure. I'm talking exclusively about the [NoInterfaceObject] case, though,

Yes, so am I.

I guess the "implements" case with a NavigatorGeolocation parameter 
somewhere is not black-box distinguishable from the partial interface 
case and a union type parameter, except for the error message the 
browser will produce...

-Boris
Received on Friday, 14 February 2014 20:37:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:37:51 UTC