- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:33:16 +0100
- CC: RDFa Working Group <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
All, To confirm, I'd like to drop the following aforementioned suggestion for multiple reasons: Nathan wrote: > [NoInterfaceObject] > ===================== > no interface object basically means that in ECMAScript typeof > InterfaceName should return undefined, and that there is no constructor > for an interface of the same name. > IRI, PlainLiteral, TypedLiteral, BlankNode and RDFTriple all have the > [NoInterfaceObject] extended attribute, which means that if any > implementation in ECMAScript wants to provide named constructors (in > order to be somewhat less verbose) they will be nonconforming with the > RDFa API. > I would ask, and suggest that NoInterfaceObject be removed from IRI, > PlainLiteral, TypedLiteral, BlankNode and RDFTriple interfaces, and > quite the opposite, that NamedConstructor[1] be added to PlainLiteral, > TypedLiteral, BlankNode and RDFTriple (IRI is debatable, but would leave > is as neither NoInterfaceObject or NamedConstructor and let > implementations decide what to do). > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-WebIDL-20080829/#NamedConstructor Best, Nathan
Received on Sunday, 19 September 2010 22:33:59 UTC