- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:47:45 +0200
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>
- Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:58:05 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: > Maciej Stachowiak: >> I see. I guess the only inconvenience currently is that you have to >> name the interface to be added and that it causes the weird mixin >> prototype behavior. In WebKit, we'll likely combine all [Supplemental] >> interfaces into the main interface. It would be nice if specs had a >> mechanism that is observationally equivalent to writing it all as one >> interface, at least for purposes of the ECMAScript binding. > > Yes, I think that’d be the solution. I think putting [Supplemental] on > the ‘implements’ statement makes sense because that’s where mixin > interfaces are going to be specified. In fact, it might make sense for > ‘implements’ statements to always imply [Supplemental] and to mix in > their properties to the LHS interface’s prototype object. Or maybe have interface supplements Document { ... }; so you do not have to invent a new name for the interface and use some other trick to hide it from the global object. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 08:48:41 UTC