W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: [enhancement request] enum partials

From: Tobie Langel <tobie@sensors.codespeaks.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:16:52 +0200
Message-Id: <1433945812.4071030.291893929.6C5C5456@webmail.messagingengine.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, public-script-coord@w3.org
Cc: Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015, at 16:09, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 6/10/15 5:38 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
> > Adding support for partial enums in WebIDL would do the trick.
> This came up before in 
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=27048 yes?  Not hat any 
> conclusions were reached...

Sorry had missed that. Not sure either re conclusions.

> > Is that doable? Else what other option would allow for this use case?
> Either using a string or modifying the base specification that defines 
> the enum.

I guess using a string would work. :) 
> I should note that the concern over fragmented specs is very real. 
> There are some working groups producing lots of small specs with 
> intricate and hidden interdependencies that are hellish to implement (or 
> indeed to understand; you have to read all of them, including ones not 
> referenced from the one you're reading, to understand how the spec 
> you're reading works).

Care to point to some examples of that, off-list if you prefer, so that
I avoid reproducing the same mistakes?

> The permissions example is not quite that extreme, I guess...

I'm not an implementor and thus not a good judge of that.

Received on Wednesday, 10 June 2015 14:17:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC