RE: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors from Domenic Denicola on 2014-07-01 (public-script-coord@w3.org from July to September 2014)

From: Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2014 21:35:07 +0000
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1404250508061.7119@domenicdenicola.com>

From: rocallahan@gmail.com <rocallahan@gmail.com> on behalf of Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>

> That's not bad but it seems like a regression from the current spec in a few ways:

Point taken; we can work on these (especially point 1). The problem remains of DOMRectReadOnly not being suitable for the bounds property, though. I have an idea for a solution which I will send shortly.

> I'd like to push a little more against the requirement that every host object class have a corresponding WebIDL interface. That seems to require spec work and API maintenance for no author benefit, as well as making specs improperly  dependent on implementation details (that could legitimately vary across implementations).

I'm having a hard time understanding this. From my understanding most (all?) implementations generate their bindings for their host object classes via WebIDL. And, WebIDL interfaces are always author-exposed, and never implementation details. So I must be missing something in what you're pushing back against.

Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 21:35:51 UTC