- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:26:03 +1000
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>,"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: W3C Script Coordination <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. ><jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 it is not merely spec authors but implementations, since the >language above says "when following the chain". For example step 6 of >[2] >constitutes following the chain, which is a runtime semantic. > >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#dfn-attribute-setter I intended the checking for the same attribute to be a compile time (specification time?) check. I'll clarify that. But the behaviour is well defined if you removed that restriction, if you follow the [PutForwards] steps in http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-attribute-setter.
Received on Sunday, 5 August 2012 00:26:56 UTC