On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Simon Pieters wrote: > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 01:02:25 +0100, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Cameron McCormack wrote: > > > Anne van Kesteren: > > > > > > Lets at least remove sequence<T> from the draft then. > > > > > > Cameron McCormack: > > > > > Other specifications use it, and it really serves a different > > > > > purpose from things like NodeList, like passing in native Array > > > > > objects to DOM methods. So I don’t think we should remove it. > > > > > > Anne van Kesteren: > > > > Which specifications use it then? > > > > > > The ones I could find were: Web Applications 1.0, RDFa API and The > > > System Information API (admittedly fewer than I thought!). > > > > Web Apps 1.0 will change if you need it to. Don't constrain on my account > > here. I'll do whatever you think we should do. The only places I use it > > are in an argument to a method because I want to allow authors to pass in > > literal JS Arrays of values, and on a NodeList descendant where I just > > wanted the user of the API to be able to get a JS Array of values. I don't > > think there's much implementation compatibility constraint here. > > Opera has implemented typedef sequence<MessagePort> MessagePortArray for > cross-document messaging and shared workers. As far as I know, our impl > is spec compliant, and I see little point in changing it.
Yeah heycam explained that that particular usage was ok. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
