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

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:10:56 -0400
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5065BE00.9050005@mit.edu>

On 9/28/12 4:28 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 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?

That's fine by me.

> 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.

I think the idea is to allow object-detection of whether the URL spec is 
supported.

-Boris

Received on Friday, 28 September 2012 15:11:34 UTC