- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 11:54:42 +1000
- To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 2/09/11 2:21 AM, timeless wrote:
> Looks good to me.
>
> I'd vote for dropping it if we don't know of any users. (I don't want
> to train that word to this device - bad habits are hard to break!)
I've dropped it now, and required that the Java language binding have
methods with particular names ("_get", "_set", etc.) for IDL special
operations that are declared without identifiers. I think that's more
consistent with an "ECMAScript first" approach than encouraging
specification authors to specify "omittable" and an identifier for the
benefit of other languages.
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.html.diff?r1=1.371;r2=1.372;f=h
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 01:55:21 UTC