Making DOMPoint a dictionary, as currently proposed, is a problem since it means other objects (such as the proposed DOMQuad) can't have DOMPoints as attributes. I'm assuming the WebIDL restriction that attributes can't be dictionaries is not easily removed. I think we probably should make DOMPoint a regular interface. For methods that take DOMPoints as parameters, we can retain the convenient literal syntax for points by adding a DOMPointLiteral dictionary type and using union types, e.g. DOMPoint convertPoint((DOMPoint or DOMPointLiteral) point); Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *Received on Monday, 16 September 2013 10:47:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:32 UTC