W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Figuring out easier readonly interfaces

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 08:59:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABHxS9g1WpViUtn9630wzUMSNmn5brbRKa5p1C61+JU0CcAe=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Cc: "Tab Atkins, Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, public-script-coord@w3.org, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen@wirfs-brock.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Oct 14, 2013 6:58 AM, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
> > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org
> > wrote:
> >> "DOMRectReadOnly" means that this interface provides only read access
> >> the object. It says nothing about whether there are ways to mutate the
> >> object, whether through other interfaces on the same object or via
> >> DOM objects (e.g. when a DOMRectReadOnly is returned by the "bounds"
> >> attribute of a mutable DOMQuad). This name may be confusing,
> >
> > The notion that the "Only" in the name refers only to the interface and
> > the object is confusing and bizarre. None of "DOM", "Rect", or "Read"
> > to the interface, they all refer to the object.
> We have the same notion elsewhere though. E.g. a <input readonly>
> cannot be modified by the user, but can be modified through script.

In this case, the "only" still describes a meaningful restriction, where
the restricted client is the user.

> Attributes annotated in IDL with "readonly" have the same behavior.

Could you provide a link to the relevant part of the webidl spec, and to an
example of a webidl that makes use of this ambiguity? Thanks.

> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 14 October 2013 16:00:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:18 UTC