Replying to some comments from Anne in IRC:
anne:
> heycam, [Constructor] also needs to address things with arguments
OK. Apart from the Audio/Image/Option constructors mentioned in HTML 5,
do you know of any other objects that have constructors that take
arguments?
> heycam, and actually also things that create objects of different
> names...
> new Image(a, b) -> HTMLImageElement
I feel like these constructors are a bit weird and specific to HTML. I
would be happy to have them left as some extra description in HTML 5
rather than sticking them in some IDL. If there are other language
bindings used for HTML 5, then they still have document.createElement()
to handle these.
Alternatively, a hack would be to have
interface Audio {
[Constructor]
Audio createAudio();
[Constructor, Overloads=createAudio]
Audio createAudioWithSrc(in DOMString src);
}
where the newly created HTMLAudioElement object would also happen to
implement the Audio interface.
> also something about Image(a, b) throwing
Nothing’s mentioned in HTML 5 at the moment about that constructor
throwing.
> heycam, would be nice to be able to say ByteArray in bindings
I think
typedef sequence<octet> ByteArray;
plus loosening of the type mapping for sequences as mentioned in
http://www.w3.org/mid/[EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
sufficient for this.
> heycam, I think DOMStringNull also makes some sense versus a special
> [[Null]]
Yeah, it does to me, too. But how much do we want to describe currently
published IDL, versus fixing some of the oddities like this?
--
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ▪ ICQ 26955922 ▪ MSN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
