> On Jan 13, 2015, at 8:26 PM, Domenic Denicola <d...@domenic.me> wrote: > > From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoe...@gmx.net] > >> I know that this a major concern to you, but my impression is that few if >> any other people regard that as anything more than "nice to have", >> especially if you equate "explaining" with having a public API for it. > > How do you propose having a private constructor API?
I don't think we need to make the constructor of HTMLUnknownElement private. It certainly isn't today. We just need to throw whenever it's called. > How do you propose instances of the objects even existing at all, if there is > no constructor that creates them? > > This is one of those "only makes sense to a C++ programmer" things. We can model it as a constructor that takes a private symbol only the DOM implementation has access to, and throws whenever this symbol is not passed in as an argument. - R. Niwa
