Re: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors

On Jul 1, 2014, at 8:08 AM, Rik Cabanier <> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Ian Hickson <> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > >
> > > You're misunderstanding me. What I meant was, when taking as input an
> > > object to a spec algorithm, you should not say "it must be a DOMRect"
> > > (or ClientRect, or DOMRectReadOnly, or CommonSuperclassRect, or...).
> > > You should say "it has x, y, width, height properties." That has
> > > nothing to do with its class.
> >
> > I guess we would do that. Currently nothing takes a DOMRect(ReadOnly) as
> > an input, so this hasn't come up.
> The way we normally do _input_ (passing from JS to a DOM API) in Web IDL
> is to use a dictionary.
> We tried that in one of the earlier proposals but this didn't allow us to set up the inheritance scheme. We did leave DOMPointInit [1] in so you can pass in objects with that signature
> I believe dictionary members are also not allowed to be readonly in WebIDL.  

Ian was talking about a dictionary as input, not as replacement for DOMRectReadOnly on the attribute ‘bounds’ of DOMQuad. This would mainly affect one of DOMQuad’s constructors: Constructor(DOMRectReadOnly rect) could be Constructor(DOMRectInit rect).

This is independent of the issue with the 'bounds’ attribute and the DOMRectReadOnly interface in general.


> 1:

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 07:24:07 UTC