- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:31:31 +1000
- To: public-webapi@w3.org
Cameron McCormack: > I’m starting to write some text for Bindings4DOM, and am wondering which > direction to take for method overloading. Ian suggests (in IRC) that we go for the “W3C IDL” option so that more ECMAScript specific functionality can go directly into the IDL. Then things like whether an attribute is DontEnum or whatever could be specified like so: interface NodeList { // in Opera you can delete NodeList.prototype.item; Node item(in unsigned long index); // but you can’t delete NodeList.prototype.length; readonly DontDelete attribute unsigned long length; // define the array indexing behaviour Node [[Get]](in unsigned long index); // and maybe you need to give the behaviour for real property // lookups (or maybe it would default to having this behaviour) any [[Get]](in any propName); } There are two targets of the bindings spec in my mind: one is spec writers, who want to be able to refer to the bindings spec and have useful definitions to make their job easier when writing specs that will be used with ECMAScript; the other is implementors, who may use the IDL for code generation. Going with “W3C IDL” certainly helps the spec writers, since it means they can stick ES-specific things more succinctly in the IDL (at the expense of being less language neutral). Would this extra information in the IDL (rather than in some prose in the other spec, or in the bindings spec that is then referenced by the other spec) help implementors who use the IDL for code generation? Thanks, Cameron -- Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/ xmpp:heycam@jabber.org ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN cam@mcc.id.au
Received on Monday, 21 May 2007 02:31:43 UTC