Re: Removing 'caller' from WebIDL

On 31/08/11 2:04 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:32:03 +0200, Boris Zbarsky <> wrote:
>> On 8/30/11 3:03 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
>> 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.

The other collections in the HTML spec still do require callers 
(HTMLFormControlsCollection, HTMLOptionsCollection, 
HTMLPropertiesCollection and HTMLFormElement).

I did raise at some 
point about removing callers from HTMLPropertiesCollection but that 
ended up WONTFIX.

Ian, are you sure we need callers on anything more than document.all?

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 05:06:37 UTC