W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > October 2015

RE: Defining exotic objects in IDL, HTML, or both?

From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:11:49 +0000
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR0501MB13691B74133F526BC207D4B6DF310@CY1PR0501MB1369.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@annevk.nl]

> The other benefit would be having only one specification being responsible
> for the translation to ECMAScript since thus far that's not exactly been a
> stable source.

Well, but HTML is so intimately tied up with ES already due to how it has to execute scripts and integrate with the event loop. I don't think we're going to be able to isolate the impact to just IDL.

> We would likely still need IDL to define these as IDL types somehow so they
> can be used in IDL blocks. Or make it clear in IDL that other specifications can
> define IDL types too without using "interface ...
> {};".

Since these are only used as return types and not as arguments, just using `object` or `any` would work, since return types in IDL are just documentation anyway.

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 16:12:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 12 October 2015 16:12:20 UTC