- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:04:30 +0200
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:32:03 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 8/30/11 3:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren 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 > > Where does it need to be implemented other than document.all? > > If it only needs to be implemented in one place, why does it need to be > a general IDL-based mechanism? I guess if that is the only place it can be in HTML directly. (I thought there was another, but I guess we removed that.) I like that you can see it directly from the IDL-snippet, but I don't feel too strongly. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2011 14:05:10 UTC