- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:16:28 -0400
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
On 9/19/13 8:31 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: > Beyond the piecemeal review of test cases, WebApps will need to > determine what to do for the WebIDL features that have no or limited > usage/test: > http://w3c-test.org/web-platform-tests/submissions/271/WebIDL/tests/submissions/heycam/notes.txt My 2 cents: > * unsigned long long without [EnforceRange] This can be tested with ProgressEvent (see its ctor and members), I believe. Or did this mean _with_ [EnforceRange]? > * platform array objects Imo these are broken and no one is really implementing them so far... > * operation overloading with distinguishing index > 0 FormData.append, IDBFactory.open, IDBObjectStore.createIndex, and all the array-taking uniform and vertexAttrib methods on WebGLRenderingContext (also tex(Sub)Image2D, buffer(Sub)Data). > * writable attribute with an enum type (JS -> IDL conversion) WebSocket.binaryType, XMLHttpRequest.responseType > * enum type as an operation return type or attribute type (IDL -> JS conversion) The attributes above? > * interface with a named property setter but not a named property creator It's not clear to me that we need to have this feature. Is it used at all? I'd argue named property setters in general are antipatterns; does anything other than DOMStringMap use them? > * [ImplicitThis] This is used by every single Window and EventTarget thing, no? Or needs to be, to get the right behavior. -Boris
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 14:17:01 UTC