- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 16:55:50 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>, WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Olli Pettay <olli@pettay.fi>, Majid Valipour <majidvp@chromium.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Majid Valipour <majidvp@chromium.org> wrote: >> It is only used as way to group properties (perhaps similar to >> ValidityState?) and to keep History interface clean and stack-like. If that >> is not valuable enough to introduce a new interface then putting these on >> the History interface is fine. > > I personally prefer flatter structures, but you're correct that > there's precedent for both and given a 1:1 relationship without setter > it does seem rather harmless. FWIW, I also think that just history.scrollRestoration would be fine, better even. Given the generic name "options", any future additions to it would still have the same names as if they're added directly to the History interface, I'm guessing. If the StateOptions interface could be implemented with no internal reference back to its owning History object it seems pretty harmless, a mere holder of values, but it'll look pretty weird if no additions are actually made to it in the future. Philip
Received on Monday, 13 July 2015 14:56:18 UTC