Re: Adding [Reflect] to WebIDL?

For Blink we have a bunch of different Reflect variants.

https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/third_party/WebKit/Source/bindings/tests/idls/TestObject.idl&l=210


On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Domenic Denicola wrote:
> >
> > In [2], Anne brought up that it would be nice to standardize [Reflect]
> > in WebIDL. I agree, except that it is weird for WebIDL to define
> > something that only applies to HTML element interfaces.
>
> Not that weird. The "Web" part of "WebIDL" is centered around HTML to a
> large extent. IMHO when we lose sight of that we risk doing things like
> designing DOM APIs around Java constraints, and we all know where that
> leads...
>
>
> Personally, the main reason I haven't pushed for [Reflect] is that it's
> not that simple. For example, you have to distinguish between reflection
> of content attributes that contain regular strings from those that contain
> URLs. You have to map attribute names like "httpEquiv" to "http-equiv" and
> "useMap" to "usemap". You have to note which reflections are "normal" and
> which are "limited to only known values". And so on. At the spec level,
> it's just simpler to define it in prose. I don't know how implementations
> of [Reflect] handle all these edge cases.
>
> --
> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
>
>


-- 
erik