- From: Daniel Ehrenberg <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 02:17:37 -0800
- To: heycam/webidl <webidl@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Monday, 4 March 2019 10:17:59 UTC
What are the next steps to make progress on this issue? The question came up again in #675. @bzbarsky The issues you point out with the above proposals seem pretty significant; it doesn't sound like WebIDL fragments are preserved contiguous in general, or that we have well-defined short names for specifications. Any more ideas? How should we proceed with defining new "partial" constructs in WebIDL? Should we hold off, due to the ambiguity, until we have a solution to this issue? -- 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/432#issuecomment-469197641
Received on Monday, 4 March 2019 10:17:59 UTC