- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 00:38:09 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- cc: David Flanagan <dflanagan@mozilla.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:40:46 -0700, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com> > wrote: > > That's OK. Exposing no-arg ctors as a first step does no harm, is no > > worse than current state, and opens the door to exactly this over due > > chunk of spec work. > > I do not think this makes sense. E.g. EventSource requires an argument > to its constructor that is needed for it to function. There is no reason > for people be able to create an XMLHttpRequestUpload object. No idea > what that would even do. > > If you want interfaces to gain constructors we should do so in a > considered manner. Not having it everywhere and then trying to sort out > the mess. Hear hear. Especially in the case elements there are interfaces where it's not at all clear what the constructor would do. e.g. Element(), or HTMLUnknownElement(), or HTMLModElement(). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 30 July 2011 00:38:41 UTC