- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:08:45 -0700
- To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, public-webapps@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com> wrote: > Three distinct topics are being mixed up here: > > 1. Whether to use WebIDL or some unproposed alternative. > > 2. Whether to use catchall patterns in new WebIDL-defined interfaces. > > 3. Whether the JS WebIDL bindings should be standardized by Ecma or W3C. > > The straw man (0. Whether to remove catchall patterns from existing WebIDL > interfaces required for backward compatibility) is nonsense and I'm going to > ignore it from here on. > > My positions are: > > 1. WebIDL, the bird in the hand (I agree with Sam: go invent something > better, come back when you're done). > > 2. Don't keep perpetuating catchall patterns, they are confusing for > developers and costly for implementors and static analysis tools, even if > implementable in some future ES edition. > > 3. Don't care. Regarding 2. How do you feel about index accessors? I.e. for example you can do: myNode.children[5] which returns the same as myNode.children.item(5) This seems equally impossible to implement in ECMAScript, but is something that I think is helpful to authors so not something that I want to stop adding to new interfaces. / Jonas
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 19:09:46 UTC