- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:43:51 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky:
> Consider these two testcases:
>
> interface A { attribute long foo; };
> interface B {};
> interface C {};
> interface D {};
> D implements B;
> D implements C;
> B implements A;
> C implements A;
>
> and
>
> interface A { attribute long foo; } ;
> interface B : A {};
> interface C : A {};
> interface D {};
> D implements B;
> D implements C;
>
> Are these legal WebIDL?
They both are.
> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-consequential-interfaces is
> unclear whether "consequential interfaces" is a list or a set. In the
> former case, you get two copies of "foo" on D via the two different
> paths, and the constructs are invalid. In the latter case, there is
> only one copy of A inolved and the constructs are valid...
It should be a set. All of the members from consequential interfaces
should be unioned together and become properties on the LHS interface's
prototype object.
> In either case, the spec should probably be clarified (possibly
> including an example).
OK.
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 05:44:24 UTC