On 10/07/2013 06:45 , Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 7/10/13 12:35 AM, Norbert Lindenberg wrote: >> So there's a new fundamentally broken type in a specification that's >> the foundation for all Web APIs, just to make it easier to describe a >> few semi-broken legacy APIs elsewhere > > To make it _possible_ to describe them, not to make it easier. > > There's a lot of stuff in WebIDL that's there only or mostly to be able > to describe legacy APIs. named/indexed getters/setters, bytestring, > some of the weirdness in how single-operation callback interfaces > behave, legacycaller, [LenientThis], [ImplicitThis], [NamedConstructor], > [TreatNonCallableAsNull], [TreatNullAs], [TreatUndefinedAs], and > probably others that I missed. > > I agree that it should be more clearly marked which parts are there for > that reason, of course. I can't seem to find a strong trace of this, but I was under the impression that at some point we'd agreed that all legacy features in WebIDL should be prefixed with "legacy" (as in legacycaller). It's not a bad idea, I think people would definitely hesitate to plaster their new APIs with LegacyByteString. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjonReceived on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 09:42:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:17 UTC