Re: Removing 'caller' from WebIDL

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren <> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 06:08:59 +0200, Cameron McCormack <> 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