W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Discussion of File API at TPAC in Lyon

From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:23:59 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik7F_bz=OH8fzYNs0iNnmRhM4WT5tDPx9bLaRU3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:09:50 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote:
>>
>> If everyone is fine with this then I am too.
>
> Does this mean the functions will also exist on URL objects?

Not unless we want them to.

> Or just on URL interface objects?

That's how I've defined it in IndexedDB.

http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#idl-def-IDBKeyRangeConstructors

> How does this work in Web IDL? (The concept seems fine to
> me, just curious.)

Since I wrote the IDL for indexeddb above, WebIDL has gotten support
for "static" which should do what we want. Though it's a bit unclear
if using a real interface would cause there to be a .prototype
property on the URL interface which we for now don't want, right. It's
also unclear if static functions appear on URL objects as well.

cc'ing Cameron for enlightenment.

/ Jonas
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:24:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:42 GMT