Re: Some issues with undo manager specification text

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> I was looking at http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/**undomanager/raw-file/tip/**
> undomanager.html<http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/undomanager/raw-file/tip/undomanager.html>and ran into some issues:
>
> 1)  No mention of where feedback should be sent.  I have friends in high
> IRC places, so I _think_ I found the right venue, but in general there
> should just be a mailto: link in the spec near the beginning.
>

Right. I originally started the discussion on whatwg but trying to be
chartered by the editing community group. However, I haven't gotten any
formal response from Aryeh with that regard. Nonetheless, the intended
place for feedback is public-webapps.

2)  UndoManager is not written in WebIDL (uses "in" for example).
>

Right, I need to update the definitions using the latest WebIDL draft.

3)  DOMTransaction should presumably be a callback interface.
>
> 4)  The callbacks on DOMTransaction should probably have more restrictive
> signatures than Function.  In particular, Function says nothing about what
> arguments are passed.  At a guess, these should all be something like:
>
>   callback TransactionAction = void ();
>
> instead of Function.


I guess. The tricky part is that almost all methods and properties on
DOMTransaction are optional. Do you know how one might specify a methods on
a callback interface to be optional?

- Ryosuke