- From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 02:36:26 +0000
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Great! Works for me--request satisfied. Thanks, -Travis -----Original Message----- From: Cameron McCormack [mailto:cam@mcc.id.au] Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 5:24 PM To: Travis Leithead Cc: public-script-coord@w3.org Subject: Re: [WebIDL] LC Comment - partial dictionary 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 Monday, 26 March 2012 02:37:34 UTC