Re: [Webidl] editorial comments

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.;r2=1.372;f=h

Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 01:55:21 UTC