Re: Should restrictions on attribute types look at flattened member types of unions? from Cameron McCormack on 2012-06-22 (public-script-coord@w3.org from April to June 2012)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:21:29 +1000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <4FE40EE9.3080404@mcc.id.au>

Cameron McCormack:
>> I think the latter is already forbidden. In #idl-attributes it says:
>>
>> The type of the attribute MUST NOT be a sequence type or nullable
>> sequence type, and it MUST NOT be a union type if one of its member
>> types (or one of its member types’ member types, and so on) is a
>> sequence type or nullable sequence type.

Boris Zbarsky:
> Should this also forbid unions containing dictionaries, presumably? (And
> similar for exception fields.)

It should, and should do so now:

http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-attributes
http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-exceptions

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2006/webapi/WebIDL/Overview.xml.diff?r1=1.540;r2=1.541;f=h

Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 06:22:04 UTC