Re: Web IDL syntax

Cameron McCormack wrote:
> Boris Zbarsky:
>> I thought there had been at least some mention of this colliding with  
>> existing string types in IDLs that are already in use?  I know this will  
>> make it much harder for Mozilla to use webidl IDL fragments "as is"...
> Yes, but then Jonas replied saying that Mozilla wasn’t intending on
> using them as is.  But if you are, …

I don't know that we've made any decisions along these lines...

> I can easily rename the type back to DOMString.  I’d like to know if you
> all think there is any problem in keeping the name as DOMString but
> removing the null from its set of values, and requiring the use of the
> nullable type ‘DOMString?’ to specify a string type that does allow
> null.  Because then it is different from the traditional DOMString as
> defined in DOM Core.

Are we going to rewrite the existing DOM spec idl to the new syntax as 
needed (e.g getElementsByTagNameNS)?


Received on Wednesday, 1 July 2009 02:16:33 UTC