- From: Domenic Denicola <d@domenic.me>
- Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:11:49 +0000
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
From: Anne van Kesteren [mailto:annevk@annevk.nl]
> The other benefit would be having only one specification being responsible
> for the translation to ECMAScript since thus far that's not exactly been a
> stable source.
Well, but HTML is so intimately tied up with ES already due to how it has to execute scripts and integrate with the event loop. I don't think we're going to be able to isolate the impact to just IDL.
> We would likely still need IDL to define these as IDL types somehow so they
> can be used in IDL blocks. Or make it clear in IDL that other specifications can
> define IDL types too without using "interface ...
> {};".
Since these are only used as return types and not as arguments, just using `object` or `any` would work, since return types in IDL are just documentation anyway.
Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 16:12:19 UTC