- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:00:41 -0800
- 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: http://mxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/source/dom/public/idl/events/nsIDOMEventListener.idl (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