Re: [heycam/webidl] Specify open dictionaries. (#180)

I guess what bothers me about option 3 being surprising, is developer's won't know they're using an open dictionary vs. a closed one unless they actually look at the WebIDL (which in practice they never do).

Whether the editor chooses to rely on an open dictionary or a closed one can be an editorial decision in lots of cases. For example, for HTTP headers, every existing HTTP header could be specified as a dictionary member (thus reaching into the prototype chain) and unspecified ones wouldn't (and thus would be enumerated instead. But  I coud equally imagine this spec'ed as a pure open dictionary (thus never reaching into the prototype chain at all). The reasons which would push an editor to choose one over the other option wouldn't be API semantics at all, but other concerns such as spec maintainability or the stability of references. _This_ is precisely what bothers me with the current proposal.

-- 
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/pull/180#issuecomment-252746416