W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:10:56 -0400
Message-ID: <5065BE00.9050005@mit.edu>
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On 9/28/12 4:28 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 1. Should we make it so that if you implement one or more partial
> interfaces but not the actual one, then an empty actual interface is
> implied?

That's fine by me.

> 2. Is it really important to avoid a prototype from existing on URL in
> this case?  I think I'd rather just leave it exist.

I think the idea is to allow object-detection of whether the URL spec is 
supported.

-Boris
Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 15:11:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:54 GMT