Re: Exposing constructors of readonly interfaces to web authors

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Domenic Denicola <> wrote:

> From: <> on behalf of Robert
> O'Callahan <>
> > 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.

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