- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:24:14 +1100
- To: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Cameron McCormack: > It does seem like it would be reasonable to support "partial > dictionaries", but dictionary members are ordered (so that any JS > getters are run in a defined order) and having partial dictionaries > separated out over multiple IDL fragments makes it unclear what the > order would be. Another request for partial dictionaries came up, so I just added them, solving the ordering problem by having dictionary members be lexicographically sorted on a given dictionary definition, but still treating ancestor members as being ordered earlier than descendant ones. (Sorry for the non-editorial change while the CfC is going.) Travis, could you please let me know whether this now satisfies your request now that I have marked it as "accepted". Thanks, Cameron
Received on Saturday, 24 March 2012 00:24:47 UTC