W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > July to September 2012

RE: In WebIDL, should having a .prototype on interface objects be optional?

From: Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 19:50:51 +0000
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9768D477C67135458BF978A45BCF9B3838477A8B@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
> From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU]
> On 9/21/12 12:39 PM, Travis Leithead wrote:
> > I believe that firstly, the File API spec needs to be rationalized
> against the URL API
> They're already there.  File API explicitly says that if you support URL
> API then you get a normal interface object and proto object.
> > Once that happens, I wonder if there are any other lingering objects for
> which the "prototype-less" interface object would be needed.
> Well, any interface that only has static stuff and no actual objects
> that implement it, right?

Yep. WebIDL _had_ modules support, but we all suggested it be removed since no one needed it. I'm only saying that I'm still not sure we'd need to re-introduce it.

I'll side note that Windows 8's WinRT namespace (window.Windows) would require modules in order to specify all the supported features using WebIDL.
Received on Monday, 24 September 2012 19:51:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:13:38 UTC