- From: Kenneth Christiansen <kenneth.christiansen@openbossa.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 07:26:11 -0300
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Luiz Agostini <luiz.agostini@openbossa.org>, www-style@w3.org, marcosc@opera.com
That sounds fine with me. Does any of you other guys disagree with the renaming? Kenneth On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com> wrote: > On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:34:00 +0200, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> >> On Jul 5, 2010, at 1:09 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>> >>> I have been thinking about this some more and I am no longer convinced >>> the complexity is justified. I think using closures is fine. For other >>> languages the bindings can be slightly modified to return a token instead or >>> something. But there's no need to make the ECMAScript variant more complex >>> as well, especially since not all implementations will have various >>> languages implementing these bindings, and also since the dominant use of >>> this API will be in ECMAScript. >> >> I'm not keen on having to special-case generated code, and, in WebKit, we >> compile Objective-C bindings for many of the IDL interfaces, and see people >> use them fairly extensively in applications that embed WebKit. >> >> Can you re-state your proposal so we're all on the same page? > > My proposal is that we do the renaming but otherwise keep the specification > as-is: > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom-view/#the-stylemedia-interface > > Making it more complex just to suit the non-ECMAScript case does not seem > worth it. > > > -- > Anne van Kesteren > http://annevankesteren.nl/ > -- Kenneth Rohde Christiansen Technical Lead / Senior Software Engineer Qt Labs Americas, Nokia Technology Institute, INdT Phone +55 81 8895 6002 / E-mail kenneth.christiansen at openbossa.org
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 10:26:40 UTC