- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:17:04 +0100
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "Domenic Denicola" <d@domenic.me>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:10:08 +0100, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:02 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> It is useful to be able to use a straight JS object as a rect. I think >> it >> would be good for Web developers to consistently support dictionary >> types >> instead of supporting them in some places but require an object of the >> proper interface in other places. >> > > Hmm. If we apply that consistency strictly, then we're not going to use > interface types as parameters anywhere, correct? Yes. > I'm not sure we should do that. It makes overloading impossible unless we > make large changes to WebIDL. The spec currently only uses overloading in the constructors, and the proposal here is to remove the overloading in favor of static methods. > It also has performance implications: passing > a DOMRectReadOnly as a DOMRectInit parameter naively requires unpacking > to > a JS object and then repacking to a DOMRectInit. We could optimize that > but > it's a significant amount of work that nobody's done yet AFAIK. This applies equally to DOMPointInit, right? > On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 21:13:04 +0100, Robert O'Callahan > <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> >> And FWIW we implemented that because it's what the spec used to say: >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/WD-geometry-1-20140522/#DOMQuad >>> >> >> Yes. That's why I ask if you're OK with the proposed change. :-) > > > I'll go along with it if everyone decides it's the right thing to do. I'm > not convinced yet. OK. At least Dirk and Tab have said that they also find the inconsistency being confusing/bad. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2015JanMar/0128.html It seems this API is not being widely used yet. https://github.com/search?l=javascript&q="new+DOMQuad"+OR+"new+DOMPoint"+OR+"new+DOMRect"+OR+"new+DOMMatrix"+NOT+test&ref=searchresults&type=Code&utf8=✓ The current state of the spec is broken (not valid WebIDL). How about I try to fix it to be more like what I think is more consistent, which in some cases is not compatible with what is implemented in Gecko, so we can compare it with the previous version of the spec? I can add an issue to the spec saying that the old version is implemented in Gecko and the new version is experimental and might not stick. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 27 March 2015 10:17:34 UTC