Re: [whatwg/dom] Proposal: Allow WebIDL binding to expose parameters' types and enums' values (Issue #1183)

> We don't typically start with proposals, unless there's already agreement that the problem is worth solving.

It appears to me self-evident that the problem is worth our attention, based on some messages in the original thread. Naming two examples:

Rick Byers [wrote](https://github.com/whatwg/webidl/issues/107#issuecomment-701025915):
>  ... We continue to hear developers complain that they really don't consider that acceptable (complexity, obscurity, desire to reliably avoid exceptions, etc).

The above message represents multiple parties who might not be actively participating in the discussion, but whose interests we should keep in mind.

Then you (@annevk) wrote:
> ... Based on that I'd still lean toward throwing getters and purpose-built support() methods where needed.

This latter message I read as implicitly acknowledging that purpose-built `support()` methods are needed on occasion.

Given that sufficient interest in the problem exists, it seems that a new proposal could in theory provide just the right multiway trade-off, and that bringing up such new proposals could be good use of our time.

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/dom/issues/1183#issuecomment-1567198488
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <whatwg/dom/issues/1183/1567198488@github.com>