On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Domenic Denicola < domenic@domenicdenicola.com> wrote: > From: rocallahan@gmail.com <rocallahan@gmail.com> on behalf of Robert > O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > > 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. > Currently Gecko has an implementation of DOMQuadBounds with no corresponding WebIDL interface. If I understand you correctly, you say that because DOMQuadBounds has its own implementation, it must have its own WebIDL interface in the spec. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 22:05:31 UTC