> On Oct 16, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu <mailto:bzbarsky@mit.edu>> wrote: > On 10/16/16 12:46 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > Looking at > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2016JanMar/0014.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2016JanMar/0014.html>, it > looks like a WebIDL requirement. > Boris, SimonP, can you comment on this? > > WebIDL provides a convenient syntax for the common case for serializers. > > It _does_ allow you do define a totally custom serializer, like so: > > serializer; > > and then defining its behavior in prose however you want. > > But note that the serializer syntax is in flux because it's overcomplicated already; see <https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/188 <https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/188>>. That said, we should leave some way of specifying a completely custom serializer, but I see no reason it shouldn't just be the declaration of a method named toJSON which you then define in prose as usual to return whatever you want to return. > > Since this feature is still being developed, maybe it shouldn't be implemented yet and we should be removed from the spec (or put at risk, moved to level 2, etc). I think you can say serializer = { x, y, width, height } to get the desired behavior. SimonReceived on Monday, 17 October 2016 03:11:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:25 UTC