[Bug 12320] ECMAScript binding forbids using ECMAScript to implement many interfaces.


--- Comment #11 from Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 2011-06-30 05:07:56 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Regarding comment #1, if the object is not a node (and it isn't), then passing
> that thing to
> appendChild results in an error. What needs fixing?

Yes, nothing needed fixing for that case, it already was disallowed.  (I think
Jonas was just stating the reasoning behind the then-current wording of the

> "In a web page, script that implements the EventListener interface,which is
> used to register a callback that the DOM Events implementation invokes, would
> be considered to be a user object."
> Missing particle "a".

I personally don't mind using script as a mass noun.

> "In a web page" is not needed.

I only say "In a web page" so that the use "script" there is necessarily
correct.  (In other language bindings, outside of web pages, I wouldn't call
them scripts.)

> I don't know how a script
> can implement anything, but a user-defined object can be said to implement
> EventListener, e.g.
> var ud = {
>  handleEvent : Function.prototype
> };

You're right here, script might implement an application of some sort, but it's
the objects in the script that implements the IDL interface.  I replaced it
with "an ECMAScript object that implements the EventListener interface".

> I'm not that comfortable with the term "user object". I usually say
> "user-defined".

Yeah, "user-defined object" does sound better or more familiar, but I think it
could be confused with any ES object the author creates.  Here I want a term
that specifically means objects the author creates that are considered to
implement IDL interfaces, so I tend to think a "novel" term like "user object"
would be better.

Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Thursday, 30 June 2011 05:08:02 UTC