Re: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional? from Cameron McCormack on 2012-09-28 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2012)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 18:28:05 +1000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <50655F95.3050800@mcc.id.au>

Boris Zbarsky:
> Should WebIDL change here?  Should FileAPI change?

Technically, it is not possible to implement File API without also 
implementing the URL specification, since if there is a "partial 
interface URL" then there must also be a "interface URL" in the set of 
IDL fragments that you implement.

Some questions then:

1. Should we make it so that if you implement one or more partial 
interfaces but not the actual one, then an empty actual interface is 
implied?  If not, then File API needs to define an empty URL interface 
for the partial one to latch on to.

2. Is it really important to avoid a prototype from existing on URL in 
this case?  I think I'd rather just leave it exist.

Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 08:28:49 UTC