W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: [geometry] DOMRectReadOnly serializer

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2016 12:04:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBETygeYdA5_HHgy2t4G=RXEqJLmn5hoWMburJfr8hj9A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 10/16/16 12:46 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
>> Looking at
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2016JanMar/0014.html, it
>> looks like a WebIDL requirement.
>> Boris, SimonP, can you comment on this?
>>
>
> WebIDL provides a convenient syntax for the common case for serializers.
>
> It _does_ allow you do define a totally custom serializer, like so:
>
>   serializer;
>
> and then defining its behavior in prose however you want.
>
> But note that the serializer syntax is in flux because it's
> overcomplicated already; see <https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/188>.
> That said, we should leave some way of specifying a completely custom
> serializer, but I see no reason it shouldn't just be the declaration of a
> method named toJSON which you then define in prose as usual to return
> whatever you want to return.


Since this feature is still being developed, maybe it shouldn't be
implemented yet and we should be removed from the spec (or put at risk,
moved to level 2, etc).
Received on Sunday, 16 October 2016 19:04:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 16 October 2016 19:05:00 UTC