W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: First paragraph of ECMAScript binding of attributes shouldn't immediately be constrained further

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 17:01:07 +1200
Message-ID: <4E4DEE13.1050505@mcc.id.au>
To: Geoffrey Sneddon <gsneddon@opera.com>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
Hi Geoffrey.

Thanks for the comment.

On 18/07/11 7:47 AM, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> Alternatively, a more radical change would be to change it to:
> "For each attribute defined on the interface, there must be a
> corresponding property, unless:
> the identifier of the attribute is “constructor”; or
> the identifier of the attribute is “toString” and the interface has a
> stringifier.
> If the attribute was declared with the [Unforgeable] extended attribute,
> then the property must exist on every object that implements the
> interface. Otherwise, it must exist on the interface’s interface
> prototype object."
> This avoids the duplication of the constraint, and keeps the requirement
> as to where the attribute must be placed in one place, both of which
> seem like reasonable goals.

I think this latter change is better, so I've gone with that.  I omitted 
the requirement to omit it if the property name is "constructor" or 
"toString", since I now have a blanket ban on interface members with 
these names.


Please let me know if you are satisfied with this resolution.


Received on Friday, 19 August 2011 05:01:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC