Re: [whatwg/dom] Provide greater visibility of `implements` relationships? (#249)

@annevk Thanks again for the feedback.

> A note is preferred since we should only have one normative IDL statement for each thing. I'm not sure if IDL makes it a formal error, but it probably should for such duplication.

Hmm, it's too bad, because showing it in both interface definitions seems best for making it visible and if it stayed in sync they wouldn't contradict each other. If that's out of the question, what do you think about comments inside the interface definition?

```js
/* 
  Document implements ParentNode;
  DocumentFragment implements ParentNode;
  Element implements ParentNode;
*/
```

or

```js
// See also Document, DocumentFragment  Element
```

Not sure if something in a comment could be linked though, which obviously would be ideal. Also I don't know how hard this would be from the authoring side vs. a note.

> Mixin would replace the [NoInterfaceObject] construct to make it a little bit more obvious what is going on.

Ok, thanks for filling me in about that.


---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/249#issuecomment-218917135