W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: [Bindings] extended attribute for callback function interfaces?

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:41 -0800
Message-ID: <492A5F29.3020403@sicking.cc>
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, public-webapps@w3.org

Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Jonas Sicking:
>> Why do we need the FunctionOnly/PropertyOnly feature? In gecko we don't  
>> have that functionality and it hasn't caused any problems that I can  
>> think of.
> I took David’s feedback to mean that sometimes you want to state that
> a single-function interface can’t be implemented by a function (and
> added PropertyOnly for that).

Ah, after rereading Davids feedback that does make sense to me. What we 
do in gecko is that we have a property that indicates 'this interface 
can be implemented as a function'. See for example:


(search for 'function').

I don't really care if it's an opt-in or opt-out though. And actually, 
simply having the [Callback] flag might be enough since as soon as you 
have said that something is a callback-interface it's going to be really 
hard to add any thing to the interface.

/ Jonas
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 08:02:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:12 UTC