- From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:46:05 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABHxS9jrYvuER2YUKjP-bRKvjiPWWizjPzA4aQq+nHkXiPA0kw@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 11:05 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > 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). "just readable, might be mutable" is self contradictory. I think you mean "readable, might be mutable". I suggest FooReader. This clearly states that it provides the ability to read a Foo, and does not state what other access it does or does not provide. "Only" should mean only. > 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 > > > > > -- Cheers, --MarkM
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 13:46:33 UTC