- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 01:35:11 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:08:59 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote: >> >> I'm open to removing "caller" from Web IDL if people think that's best, >> and I'd be happy to suggest wording to be added to the HTML spec to handle >> the cases that do need to remain. > > I think we should keep it in IDL because it needs to be implemented, but if > we do not want to spread it lets just name it "legacycaller" instead (and > likewise prefix all other problematic constructs with "legacy"). Given that it's only been shown to be needed for a single API (document.all), what is the advantage of having the prose in the WebIDL spec, rather than in the HTML5 spec? / Jonas
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 08:36:16 UTC