- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:07:26 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12320 --- Comment #3 from Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> 2011-03-16 22:07:25 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > Then you need to specify the actual requirements rather than hiding them behind > some broad prohibitive on using a specific implementation language. > > For example for appendChild you might say that the argument Node must be an > object that was created as if by called some list of specified methods that > would include createElement and others. That could work but would require such language in a very large set of functions. Very likely leading to people forgetting this all over leading to confusion and possibly even inconsistencies across implementations. > Or you might define a categorization of object such as "trusted DOM object" > that means something over and beyond just implemented a certain interface. > You when then require that certain arguments in addition to implementing > some interface must also be trusted DOM objects. That is what we've done. Or at least that's what I believe the spec is attempting to do. Anything that isn't explicitly marked "[Callback]" is required to be a "trusted DOM object". I'm all for improving the wording though if you have suggestions (and assuming Cameron is ok with it since I'm not an editor). -- 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 Wednesday, 16 March 2011 22:07:27 UTC