- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:42:57 +0200
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, "public-script-coord@w3.org" <public-script-coord@w3.org>
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:15:30 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > >> I have moved them to a common interface annotated with >> [NoInterfaceObject] >> and let DOMRect and DOMRectReadOnly implement it. >> >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/**rev/3c529183812b<https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/3c529183812b> >> >> This approach is used by the DOM spec in similar situations. >> >> In the JS binding, this is equivalent to what the spec had before. > > > Now we have three interfaces where only two are needed. Why shouldn't > DOMRect extend DOMRectReadOnly directly? In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Sep/0725.html you argued that that would be confusing. Did you change your mind, or was it only confusing for "immutable"? Personally I don't mind either way; we could also do readonly<DOMRect> as Tab suggested in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2013JulSep/0701.html but we'd need to figure out what that would mean. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2013 07:43:29 UTC