On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Sep 2010, Adam Barth wrote: > > > > I think the bitfield approach is better. The current approach doesn't > > work very well in strongly typed languages. Although we might think > > that these APIs will be used most-often from JavaScript, these APIs are > > language neutral and should work in a variety of settings (e.g., as part > > of the NPAPI). Baking in assumptions that APIs are used by dynamically > > typed language isn't good for the web platform in the long term. > > The APIs don't have to be identical in each language. For example, I would > expect a C++ port of ValidityState: > > > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/complete.html#validitystate > > ...to be implemented as a bitfield with constants, rather than as an > object with fields. Should anyone want to implement that interface in such > a language, then would be a time to provide suitable IDL for that case. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' > >
Slight tangent.... Based on the ValidityState example, it seems that the members of Flags should be camelCase then instead of UPPERCASE? -Darin
