Re: [matrix][cssom-view] DOMPoint, DOMPointLiteral definitions

On Oct 2, 2013, at 4:22 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 14:44:31 +0200, Robert O'Callahan  
> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:42 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:15:30 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <
>>> robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Now we have three interfaces where only two are needed. Why shouldn't
>>>> DOMRect extend DOMRectReadOnly directly?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> In  
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.**html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.html>you  
>>> argued that that would be confusing. Did you change your mind, or was
>>> it only confusing for "immutable"?
>>> 
>> 
>> As long as it's clear that ReadOnly != Immutable, I think it's OK.
>> 
>> I think readonly<Foo> is going to be difficult to define and will also be
>> clumsy. An interface might have arbitrary mutation methods on it, e.g.
>> Foo::reset(), and there will be no easy way to automatically obviate such
>> methods without additional annotations. I don't think we should go that  
>> way.
> 
> OK.

I would like to know if we all agree on the model: Foo (mutable and modifiable); FooReadOnly (just readable, might be mutable or immutable). Can we settle on this model? If their are still doubts and requests for readonly<Foo> instead, we should resolve them before we introduce APIs that need to be deprecated later.

Does the stringifier for Foo look different to FooReadOnly? I would expect so, otherwise we would need to introduce an indicator for web developers if the current object is readonly.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/6eba16fd75cb
> 
> -- 
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
>

Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 06:06:04 UTC