W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: WebIDL Plans

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 12:37:31 -0400
Message-ID: <552D424B.3030806@mit.edu>
To: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
CC: public-webapps@w3.org
On 4/14/15 8:22 AM, Yves Lafon wrote:
> I remember ArrayClass removed from NodeList for the reason of lack of implementations, and even plans for implementation

It was removed because as things stand it's not web-compatible.  Once 
@@isConcatSpreadable exists in implementations, we could and should 
reinstate ArrayClass on NodeList, I expect, while making it 
concat-spreadable at the same time.  Certainly I plan to do so in Gecko.

Thank you for the summary of stuff we're considering unstable for now. 
Comments inline.

> Currently maplike/setlike/ RegExp [Unscopeable] [PrimaryGlobal] [ImplicitThis], most probably iterable.

OK.  So I'm fine with maplike/setlike being considered unstable at the 
moment, because they are.

I have no strong opinion on RegExp, since I suspect in practice no one 
uses it anywhere so far.

[Unscopeable] is not implemented in UAs yet, but doing that blocks 
implementing some DOM APIs, fwiw.

[PrimaryGlobal] is needed for [Exposed] stuff to make any sense.  I see 
no reason not to keep it; it's supported in Gecko fwiw.

[ImplicitThis] is, I agree, unstable in terms of IDL syntax.  The 
functionality is obviously needed for basic web compat; I think we 
should just make it a priority to get this part sorted out and stabilized.

> But of course this is also subject to the number of bugs attached to them, issues with test etc...

Sure.

> So many things will still be considered “at risk”.

That's fine.

> I didn’t see any trace of [ImplicitThis] either, so that will make it hard to test (the Window interface given in the example is no longer using it).

It's trivial to test its effects.  If this script puts up an alert:

   <script>
     alert("Hello");
   </script>

then something like [ImplicitThis] is being done somewhere, whether the 
specs call for it or not.  What that something is should probably be 
specced, of course.  ;)

> Ah indeed no, and now I wonder why I added it in my list… (so as no specs seems to use them, I don’t think there are implementations around).

I'm not aware of any implementations, correct.

-Boris
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 16:38:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:27:31 UTC