[Bug 15931] New: WebIDL snippets need updating

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15931

           Summary: WebIDL snippets need updating
           Product: CSS
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Regions
        AssignedTo: vhardy@adobe.com
        ReportedBy: Ms2ger@gmail.com
         QAContact: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org
                CC: eoconnor@apple.com


There are various bugs in the WebIDL blocks:

> [Supplemental] interface Document {
>   NamedFlow getFlowByName(DOMString name);
>   NamedFlowCollection getNamedFlows();
> };

'[Supplemental]' should be 'partial'.

> interface NamedFlowCollection {
>     readonly attribute unsigned long length;
>     caller getter NamedFlow item (in unsigned long index);
> }

Trailing semicolon is missing.

'caller' should not be used, as it should only be used for legacy features
(document.all). See <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-legacy-callers>.

The specification does not list the 'supported property indices', as required
by the WebIDL specification
(<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-indexed-properties>).

Furthermore, as item() can return null, the return type must be 'NamedFlow?',
including the question mark.

'in' is also no longer supported.

> [Supplemental] interface Element {
>     readonly attribute DOMString regionOverflow;
>     getter Range[] getRegionFlowRanges();
> };

Again, 'partial'.

'getter's must take exactly one argument (either unsigned long or DOMString).
In fact, this should probably be

|     readonly attribute Range[] regionFlowRanges;

as there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use a function.

Finally, a normative reference to the WebIDL specification is missing, which
strictly speaking means that these snippets are meaningless.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2012 20:28:33 UTC