- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:58:53 +0200
- To: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
- Cc: WebIntents <public-web-intents@w3.org>
On May 22, 2012, at 20:52 , Greg Billock wrote: > One piece of feedback we've gotten on the API is that we should be > able to enumerate the extra data fields (i.e. returning a dictionary > there instead of the getExtra() function). My concern about that is > that it's a bit ambiguous how that relates to Javascript, and that's > why we don't see APIs use that pattern. Is there a good way around > that difficulty? I've been looking at this again and it made me wonder: is there a reason why this is exposed as getExtra(key) rather than simply having a readonly attribute any extras that would expose the whole thing as a dictionary? I may be missing something, but that would seem to give us good JS integration, enumeration, etc. free. What were the concerns that led to using an accessor here? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 10:59:26 UTC