W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > May 2013

RE: API updated to use Futures - request for review

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 6 May 2013 13:29:35 +0200
To: "'Marcos Caceres'" <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: <public-script-coord@w3.org>, <public-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00b501ce4a4c$ff2640b0$fd72c210$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Sunday, May 05, 2013 7:45 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote:
> I think you might have implemented the JsonLdProcessor "interface
> object" incorrectly (in http://json-ld.org/playground/jsonld.js). It
> does not seem you implemented the "prototype" object part. See:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#interface-prototype-object

That's right. It's currently defined directly in the idltest:


I agree it should be moved into jsonld.js

> In particular, see the part about": "The class string of an interface
> prototype object is the concatenation of the interface’s identifier and
> the string “Prototype”."
> It might help to look at an implementation that exports an interface
> object as per WebIDL:
> https://github.com/extensibleweb/webidl.js/blob/master/lib/interfaces/W
> ebIDL.js

Thanks for the pointer.

> Note that it's impossible to fake the "native brand" of an object
> (i.e., you can never actually get it to report [object JsonLdProcessor]
> ) when testing, so a some point your tests will fail with a JS
> implementation that is intended to be a host object.
> However, that is OK, so long as the behaviour is identical.

That's what I thought, yeah.

Did you have a chance to look at API definition in the spec as well?

Thanks again,

Markus Lanthaler
Received on Monday, 6 May 2013 11:30:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:59:33 UTC