- From: Tobie Langel <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2016 03:00:34 -0800
- To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <heycam/webidl/issues/202/258673631@github.com>
So I'm nearly finished with a PR for this. I started off (https://github.com/tobie/webidl/commit/9e54e64fe575a5959c7d0601b11609c7cd35ff64) considering legacy platform objects and platform objects as two disjoint sets. This had the benefit of forcing me to make explicit decisions as to whether each occurence of the term "platform object" referenced all platform objects or just legacy or non-legacy ones. It turns out that there are very few places where we want to refer exclusively to platform objects which are not legacy ones, so the end result of this approach is to litter the spec with the following construct: ``` [=platform object|platform=] or [=legacy platform object|legacy platform=] objects ``` Having gone down that road, I think the right approach is to consider legacy platform objects as a proper subset of platform objects and, in the rare cases where that's really needed, refer to the complement of legacy platform objects as: "platform objects which are not legacy platform objects." I'll amend the branch accordingly unless I hear strong voices in favor of the disjoint sets approach. -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/202#issuecomment-258673631
Received on Sunday, 6 November 2016 11:01:12 UTC