Re: Can callback interfaces have consequential interfaces?

• From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
• Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:32:03 +1000
• To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
• CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
• Message-ID: <4FE2B1D3.4060302@mcc.id.au>

Boris Zbarsky:
> The spec says that the ancestors of a callback interface must not have
> consequential interfaces.  But it says nothing about the callback
> interface itself.  This seems like an oversight at first glance...

That would only be possible if you wrote

   CallbackInterface implements RegularInterface;

which I thought I had disallowed but apparently not.  Should be fixed 
now (with a redundant but maybe helpful sentence in 
#idl-implements-statements too):

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.xml.diff?r1=1.536;r2=1.537;f=h

Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 05:32:37 UTC