Re: [whatwg/dom] Provide greater visibility of `implements` relationships? (#249)

@annevk Thanks for the reply.

> HTML has similar faults and there's not really an organized way we go about this.

Oh, ok, good to know. If I have a thought about something like this I'll consider that maybe it just evolved that way without anyone being too attached to it.

> We could move the "implements" statements to the "interfaces" and add a note below the mixins.

That sounds pretty good. Like I mentioned, it seems to me the ideal would be to list them in both places. I think you know what I mean, but just to be clear I mean something like this:

```js
interface ParentNode {
  // ...
};
Element implements ParentNode;

interface Element : Node {
  // ...
};
Element implements ParentNode;
```

I think you're describing putting it in a note beneath (outside of) the interface definition, like the note box beneath [`ParentNode`](https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#interface-parentnode). If what I had in mind doesn't make sense that sounds like the next best thing. (Just curious, is it a technological issue or editorial reason that makes that preferred?)

> A mixin is a term IDL will eventually adopt to describe these [NoInterfaceObject] interfaces shared by several "interfaces" (really objects or classes, another thing IDL should eventually change).

Oh ok, thanks, I wasn't familiar with `[NoInterfaceObject]` or the converse, that otherwise the interface is implicitly an ES binding. So would mixin be a synonym for `[NoInterfaceObject]`, or replace it, or ...? (If that's too much of a tangent feel free to treat it as a rhetorical question.)

Thanks!

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/249#issuecomment-218749837