W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Non-constructible constructors and Arrays

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:01:02 -0400
Message-ID: <4E6A7E8E.5070007@mit.edu>
To: Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitchen@gmail.com>
CC: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On 9/9/11 3:04 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
> OK, so in the case of Element, that would be web dom core, right?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/

Yes.  But the point is that if the spec needs to worry about the 
constructor no matter what, WebIDL's claiming that there is a 
constructor by default is not very useful.  In my opinion.

>> Is this really such a hard concept to grasp?  I'm getting the feeling
>> that people are really confused about what WebIDL itself can define and
>> what specs using WebIDL as their interface description language can
>> define...
> "This document defines an interface definition language, Web IDL, that
> can be used to describe interfaces that are intended to be implemented
> in web browsers."
> So essentially, you want to describe in a general sense how interface
> objects work and leave the specifics of how they're implemented to the
> specifications in which define them. Did I get that right?

That's how it works, yes....  In particular, WebIDL itself cannot say 
anything about how any _particular_ interface behaves.

Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 21:01:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:04 UTC