- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 01:20:21 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
> is it strictly necessary for W3C HTML to update to the new WebIDL syntax for mixins for us to change to the new syntax for including them on our interfaces? I'm certainly not an expert on Web IDL syntax. It might not make a big deal. [The Web IDL spec](https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#NoInterfaceObject) clearly describes the old usage of `[NoInterfaceObject]` and `implements` as being equivalent to a `mixin` and `includes`, even if it is a deprecated syntax. Maybe @heycam can weigh in as the official arbiter of Web IDL syntax rules. > (still doesn't help that we still reference 5.1) We could at least update our definitions to use https://www.w3.org/TR/html/ or https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/ as the base URL, which currently point to 5.2, but would get updated when 5.3 is published. If it's likely that 5.3 will include the new IDL syntax and get published before we next update an SVG 2 CR, that would solve that issue without a W3C vs WHATWG debate. @dirkschulze Are you able to make the following changes? - Add the mixin syntax for `LinkStyle`, and update the definitions.xml to point to the [TR version of CSSOM](https://www.w3.org/TR/cssom-1/) (which will hopefully eventually be republished with the new syntax). - Update the definitions.xml references to HTML to use the unversioned TR URLs. - Add an entry to changes.html with a brief mention of the syntax change (being sure to mark it as a change since last publication). If you're not likely to get to it in the next week or so, I suspect that @dstorey would make the changes if you asked. -- GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/pull/376#issuecomment-373573361 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 16 March 2018 01:20:23 UTC