- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 03:41:26 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
- cc: Eric Uhrhane <ericu@google.com>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Adam Barth wrote: > > I think the bitfield approach is better. The current approach doesn't > work very well in strongly typed languages. Although we might think > that these APIs will be used most-often from JavaScript, these APIs are > language neutral and should work in a variety of settings (e.g., as part > of the NPAPI). Baking in assumptions that APIs are used by dynamically > typed language isn't good for the web platform in the long term. The APIs don't have to be identical in each language. For example, I would expect a C++ port of ValidityState: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#validitystate ...to be implemented as a bitfield with constants, rather than as an object with fields. Should anyone want to implement that interface in such a language, then would be a time to provide suitable IDL for that case. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 03:41:55 UTC