W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapi@w3.org > June 2007

Some comments from anne in irc

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 10:23:41 +1000
To: public-webapi@w3.org
Message-ID: <20070629002341.GA19512@arc.mcc.id.au>

Replying to some comments from Anne in IRC:

> heycam, [Constructor] also needs to address things with arguments

OK.  Apart from the Audio/Image/Option constructors mentioned in HTML 5,
do you know of any other objects that have constructors that take

> heycam, and actually also things that create objects of different
> names...
> new Image(a, b) -> HTMLImageElement

I feel like these constructors are a bit weird and specific to HTML.  I
would be happy to have them left as some extra description in HTML 5
rather than sticking them in some IDL.  If there are other language
bindings used for HTML 5, then they still have document.createElement()
to handle these.

Alternatively, a hack would be to have

  interface Audio {

    Audio createAudio();

    [Constructor, Overloads=createAudio]
    Audio createAudioWithSrc(in DOMString src);

where the newly created HTMLAudioElement object would also happen to
implement the Audio interface.

> also something about Image(a, b) throwing

Nothing’s mentioned in HTML 5 at the moment about that constructor

> heycam, would be nice to be able to say ByteArray in bindings

I think

  typedef sequence<octet> ByteArray;

plus loosening of the type mapping for sequences as mentioned in
http://www.w3.org/mid/20070628112526.GA14240@arc.mcc.id.au would be
sufficient for this.

> heycam, I think DOMStringNull also makes some sense versus a special
> [[Null]]

Yeah, it does to me, too.  But how much do we want to describe currently
published IDL, versus fixing some of the oddities like this?

Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
	xmpp:heycam@jabber.org  ▪  ICQ 26955922  ▪  MSN cam@mcc.id.au
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 00:23:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:16:23 UTC