- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 08:37:18 +0100
- To: "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@opera.com>, "Arun Ranganathan" <arun@mozilla.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:02:25 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: >> Anne van Kesteren: >> > > > Lets at least remove sequence<T> from the draft then. >> >> Cameron McCormack: >> > > Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different >> > > purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array >> > > objects to DOM methods. So I don’t think we should remove it. >> >> Anne van Kesteren: >> > Which specifications use it then? >> >> The ones I could find were: Web Applications 1.0, RDFa API and The >> System Information API (admittedly fewer than I thought!). > > Web Apps 1.0 will change if you need it to. Don't constrain on my account > here. I'll do whatever you think we should do. The only places I use it > are in an argument to a method because I want to allow authors to pass in > literal JS Arrays of values, and on a NodeList descendant where I just > wanted the user of the API to be able to get a JS Array of values. I > don't > think there's much implementation compatibility constraint here. Opera has implemented typedef sequence<MessagePort> MessagePortArray for cross-document messaging and shared workers. As far as I know, our impl is spec compliant, and I see little point in changing it. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Friday, 11 March 2011 07:38:19 UTC