W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: [WebIDL] ES3.1 'flexible' attribute and 'delete' semantics

From: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <c9e12660808141856q3abb4d51rb49f8f5ad8185f35@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: "Web Applications Working Group WG" <public-webapps@w3.org>

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 14, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> Document interface is an interface. An interface does not have defined
>> implementation; it is merely a contract. "IDL" is for "Interface
>> Definition".
>>
>> The fact that some browsers expose Document as a global property does
>> not need standardization. It would not be bad to have DOM readonly
>> properties implemented with [[DontDelete]], [[ReadOnly]]. That could
>> be one line in WebIDL, e.g.
>>
>> "DOM readonly properties have [[DontDelete]] and [[ReadOnly]]."
>>
>> But it seems fairly obvious that this would have to be so, so it
>> wouldn't seem critical to include that.
>
> All of the top four browser vendors would like to have these kinds of
> details clearly specified and to converge on interoperable behavior. I am
> not aware of any vendor that specifically wishes to diverge from
> interoperable behavior. As such, I hope the editor politely declines your
> requests to leave such things unspecified.

what 'such things'?

>
> In general, leaving things unspecified does not prevent Web content from
> relying on them,

People will do all sorts of things won't they?


> Regards,
> Maciej
>
>
Received on Friday, 15 August 2008 01:56:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:27 GMT