- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:10:16 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24025
Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |glenn@skynav.com
--- Comment #7 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> ---
(In reply to David Dorwin from comment #2)
> That makes sense, but I think we might need to then define the possible
> configuration values:
> Looking at the WebIDL spec, I'm not sure you can have a parameter of type
> "dictionary". Instead, the examples and algorithms show and imply,
> respectively, use of a dictionary definition.
This is a common pattern. For example, see EventInit [1], passed as a generic
initialization parameters collection to the Event constructor [2].
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#eventinit
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/dom/#event
> If we can determine a likely set of member, that might be okay and would
> allow us to define the members in the spec (helping with interop) while
> maintaining extensibility.
You can define zero or more potential standardized members, leaving others to
be CDM specific (and defined in CDM specific documentation).
It would be much better to use a dictionary than to use a serialized JSON
string.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 16:10:18 UTC