Re: Defining exotic objects in IDL, HTML, or both?

On 10/12/15 8:45 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> https://old.etherpad-mozilla.org/html5-cross-origin-objects and
> https://github.com/domenic/window-proxy-spec contain sketches for
> three type of objects we need to define:
>
> * WindowProxy object
> * cross-origin WindowProxy object (CrossOriginWindowProxy?)
> * cross-origin Location object (CrossOriginLocationProxy?)
>
> We could define the bindings for these directly in HTML or IDL could
> provide some more sugar. What would be better?

I personally think we should reserve IDL for things people will want to 
do more than once, since the point is making sure that such things are 
done uniformly and the work can be reused.

For things that need to be done only once, as here, it seems better to 
me to define them directly in the spec that's doing them instead of 
adding complexity to IDL...

Note that IDL does allow other specifications to define new extended 
attributes, as far as I can tell, so you can still add some sugar in 
terms of how things are expressed in IDL even if you're defining 
functionality in a different specification.

-Boris

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 14:40:26 UTC