W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2014

[Bug 25495] Behavior of no [Exposed] on interface members is weird

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 20:27:19 +0000
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-25495-3890-Afl6D3F8vW@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25495

Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ian@hixie.ch

--- Comment #6 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> ---
My preference for this would be that [Exposed] on an interface applies to the
interface, that everything on an interface that isn't annotated with its own
[Exposed] is always visible on that interface, and that the UA additionally
adds any "implements" and "partial" interfaces that are themselves Exposed
appropriately.

So:

  [Exposed=A,B]
  interface Foo {
    void f1();
  };
  Foo implements Bar;

  [Exposed=A]
  partial interface Foo {
    void F2();
  };

  [Exposed=B]
  partial interface Foo {
    void F3();
  };

  [Exposed=A]
  interface Bar {
    void f4();
  };

...would result in an interface Foo in contexts A and B but not C, and in A it
would have f1, f2, and f4, while in B it would have f2 and f3.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 28 July 2014 20:27:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:22 UTC