Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:38:08 +0200, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> > wrote: >> Meanwhile, what we need is concrete bug reports of specific instances >> where the existing WebIDL description of key interfaces is done in a >> way that precludes a pure ECMAScript implementation of the function. > > Is there even agreement that is a goal? > > I personally think the catch-all pattern which Brendan mentioned is > quite convenient and I do not think it would make sense to suddenly stop > using it.
It does make sense to stop using it. Typical uses of this pattern result in a collision between two namespaces: a namespace of objects defined in HTML/XML (named by IDs for example), and the namespace of methods in a DOM object. This causes problems if an ID matches a method name, and requires programmers to use a different syntax if an ID name is not an ECMAScript identifier. It is *much* clearer to define an explicit 'get' method, similar to 'getElementById' for example. > Also, the idea of removing the feature from Web IDL so that > future specifications cannot use it is something I disagree with since > having it in Web IDL simplifies writing specifications for the (legacy) > platform and removes room for error. The suggestion was only to stop using the catch-all pattern for new APIs, not to remove it. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ http://davidsarah.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
