- From: Jeffrey Yasskin <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 13:28:07 -0800
- To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 18 December 2017 21:28:43 UTC
2ยข: I really like the idea of listing all the slots in the `interface {...}` definition. For slots that match 1-1 with an attribute that reflects them, I'm happy with any of the 3+ options for listing the name only once. I'd be somewhat unhappy having to list both the slot and the attribute that reflects it.
I'd like specs to define the *type* of all of their slots. When the slot is reflected by an attribute, it makes sense to use a WebIDL type for the slot. But lots of slots have types that aren't representable by WebIDL. For example, [`BluetoothDevice.[[representedDevice]]`](https://webbluetoothcg.github.io/web-bluetooth/#dom-bluetoothdevice-representeddevice-slot) holds the platform's idea of a Bluetooth device. For these, prose should be required to specify the type of the slot, and maybe a "`SeeBelow`" keyword in the IDL would be helpful in reminding spec authors to do 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/heycam/webidl/pull/495#issuecomment-352562806
Received on Monday, 18 December 2017 21:28:43 UTC