- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:38:08 +0100
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:45:20 +0100, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
wrote:
> Here is my proposal then. For both the “editorial” case (like how the
> deprecated members of HTMLBodyElement are separated in HTML5 from the
> rest purely for editorial reasons) and the “extension” case as in the
> above CSSOM and DOM Parser examples, we allow interfaces to be extended:
>
> // in DOM Core
> interface Element : Node {
> DOMString getAttribute(in DOMString name);
> …
> };
>
> // in DOM Parser
> extend interface Element {
> void insertAdjacentHTML(DOMString position, DOMString text);
> …
> };
>
> We would still allow mixin interfaces to be defined and then used with
> “implements” statements for cases where they really are more like
> separate interfaces.
>
> WDYT?
Looks good to me.
> [I don’t particularly like “supplemental” as the keyword to use, as it
> sounds like it’s really a separate interface – more like the mixin case.
> Although I am not that happy with “extend”, either, as it sounds more
> like a command than some declarative statement of fact like “implements”
> does. Bikeshedding welcome! :)]
"extends"? :-)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 11:39:14 UTC