- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 15:11:21 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21640 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jackalmage@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #9) > > It sounds like in this instance "Node" style and "Web" style > > don't agree... It's not clear to me why we're using the former > > for a web spec (or using webidl for a non-web spec, if this > > is not a web spec), honestly. > > Hmm... would you mind sending this comment directly to > public-rdf-comments@w3.org so that it can be formally addressed? Thanks. > > Why is object or object[] not valid WebIDL? The only restriction on arrays > I've found in the WebIDL spec is the following: "The element type of an > array MUST NOT be a sequence or dictionary type." Is it because object and > object[] are not distinguishable? What could we do about that? You can't do anything about it. That's the whole point of "not distinguishable" - you can't distinguish them in a reliable way. (Node and other JS libraries often use some arbitrary form of duck-typing to accomplish this, but that doesn't work at large.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 12 April 2013 15:11:26 UTC