- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:01:02 -0400
- 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. -Boris
Received on Friday, 9 September 2011 21:01:30 UTC