- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:57:10 +0200
- To: "Simon Pieters" <simonp@opera.com>, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-webapps@w3.org, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "Shiki Okasaka" <shiki@google.com>
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:16:00 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:07:22 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> > wrote: >> Cameron McCormack: >>> Following are my half baked proposals. >> >> I’ve now baked all of these proposals into the spec, except for the one >> about allowing multiple module levels with a module declaration (i.e., >> ‘module a::b::c’). >> >> * Made ‘in’ optional >> http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-operations > > Having it optional will likely lead to inconsistently written IDLs, > which can be confusing. I think it would be better to either require it > (as legacy cruft, basically) or remove it altogether (the relevant IDLs > will need to be rewritten anyway for the other changes). +1 to removing cruft. (Also, I'd hate to add it back to CSSOM View at this point :-P) -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 27 July 2009 13:58:14 UTC