- From: Ryosuke Niwa <rniwa@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 23:46:14 -0800
- To: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-dom@w3.org" <www-dom@w3.org>
> On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:26 PM, Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me> wrote: > > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] > >> I know that this a major concern to you, but my impression is that few if any other people regard that as anything more than "nice to have", especially if you equate "explaining" with having a public API for it. > > How do you propose having a private constructor API? I don't think we need to make the constructor of HTMLUnknownElement private. It certainly isn't today. We just need to throw whenever it's called. > How do you propose instances of the objects even existing at all, if there is no constructor that creates them? > > This is one of those "only makes sense to a C++ programmer" things. We can model it as a constructor that takes a private symbol only the DOM implementation has access to, and throws whenever this symbol is not passed in as an argument. - R. Niwa
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 07:47:04 UTC