- From: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 19:47:54 -0700
- To: public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, Cameron McCormack <cmccormack@mozilla.com>
I would, again, like to bring up the issue of non-constructable constructors as the default in WebIDL. It is onerous to down-stream authors to leave such a foot-gun in the spec if they're *expected* to provide constructors for most classes (and this is JS we're talking about, so they are) and it is hostile to web developers to implicitly encourage this sort of brokenness with regards to the target language. None of the arguments presented for non-constructable-ctors as the default have substantively addressed WebIDL's responsibility to either JS or to other spec authors, instead fobbing the requirements back onto them. Regards On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote: > On September 27 a Last Call Working Draft of Web IDL was published: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-WebIDL-20110927/ > > The deadline for comments is October 18 and all comments should be sent to: > > public-script-coord@w3.org > > The comment tracking doc for the previous LC is: > > http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/lc1.txt > > Cameron, Philippe - if you think it is necessary, please fwd this e-mail to > ECMA TC39. > > -AB > >
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 02:48:50 UTC