- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 10:33:48 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > In [1], the following language appears: > >> Note that [PutForwards]-annotated attributes can be chained. That is, an >> attribute with the [PutForwards] extended attribute can refer to an >> attribute that itself has that extended attribute. Theremust not exist a >> cycle in a chain of forwarded assignments. A cycle exists if, when following >> the chain of forwarded assignments, a particular attribute on an interface >> is encountered more than once. > > > While this states that a cycle must not exist, it fails to define > implementation behavior regarding cycle detection and action in the presence > of a cycle. If this is intentionally left undefined, perhaps that should be > stated. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#PutForwards Since the audience for that requirement is spec authors themselves, I think the presence of a bare MUST NOT is sufficient. If a spec author violates it, someone can point it out to them, and they can change the spec. ~TJ
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2012 17:34:36 UTC