- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:22:19 +0200
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-script-coord@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > Well, it happens to be a lot easier to implement at least for me if we allow > those, because then dictionary members act exactly like optional method > arguments... I guess having these supported as part of the browser engine does not matter much. It's mostly new specifications we care about. As long as those don't use it, browsers won't have it either (even though it would theoretically work). Maybe Web IDL should have some kind of implementor/spec-writer split as far as conformance goes. -- Anne — Opera Software http://annevankesteren.nl/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2012 14:22:49 UTC