Re: [Webidl] editorial comments

Again, snipped comments I agreed with and changed accordingly.;r2=1.367;f=h

I will assume these changes are acceptable unless I hear otherwise.



On 24/08/11 11:05 AM, timeless wrote:
>> Let O be the result of constructing a new object of class C.
>> When invoking the constructor, the result of converting M to a
>> java.lang.String object to is used as the constructor's sole argument,
> s/constructor's/constructor’s/

You are as picky as I am there. :)

>> Made calling an ECMAScript Function that corresponds to an IDL
>> operation throw a TypeError if the this value isn't an object
> you could s/isn't/isn’t/ -- i haven't built up a full model, it seems
> like you only use `'` marks in<code>.


>> If the unsigned long long is less than to 2^53 − 1
> s/to// or s/to/or equal to/ -- dunno, it matters

≤ seems to be correct.

> technically "omittable" should probably be "omissible", but, that'd be
> a language change. otoh, it's kinda like http-referrer :(

Huh, you're right!  I am not sure that anybody is using it, so maybe we 
should just remove it.

(part 2)

> The method has an argument for each type, in order, that is in types.
> s/that/which/ (according to MS Word)

It's probably guessing that based on the comma that precedes it but it's 
just there set off the parenthetical "in order".  Not changing this one.

Received on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 04:19:38 UTC