- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 09:23:59 -0800
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Arun Ranganathan <aranganathan@mozilla.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 03:09:50 +0100, Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc> wrote: >> >> If everyone is fine with this then I am too. > > Does this mean the functions will also exist on URL objects? Not unless we want them to. > Or just on URL interface objects? That's how I've defined it in IndexedDB. http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/IndexedDB/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#idl-def-IDBKeyRangeConstructors > How does this work in Web IDL? (The concept seems fine to > me, just curious.) Since I wrote the IDL for indexeddb above, WebIDL has gotten support for "static" which should do what we want. Though it's a bit unclear if using a real interface would cause there to be a .prototype property on the URL interface which we for now don't want, right. It's also unclear if static functions appear on URL objects as well. cc'ing Cameron for enlightenment. / Jonas
Received on Saturday, 13 November 2010 17:24:53 UTC