- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:11:52 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 13:43:25 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:56:23 +0200, Robert O'Callahan > <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: >> >>> Do we need to differentiate between live/read-only and immutable at >>> all? >>> >> >> In theory it could be useful for some clients to know when an object is >> immutable, because it means they can avoid copying it. >> >> Currently we don't need DOMRectImmutable because AFAIK we don't have >> anything that would return an immutable rect. So we can avoid >> specifying it >> for now, and just specify DOMRect and DOMRectMutable. > > That's what the spec has right now, but it calls them DOMRectReadOnly > and DOMRect (since the mutable one has a constructor, it's nicer for it > to have a short name). > > The two interfaces now have their top/right/bottom/left attributes > identical. We could move them to a common interface, like DOMRectBase or > AbstractDOMRect. I have moved them to a common interface annotated with [NoInterfaceObject] and let DOMRect and DOMRectReadOnly implement it. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/3c529183812b This approach is used by the DOM spec in similar situations. In the JS binding, this is equivalent to what the spec had before. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 19:12:24 UTC