On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Garrett.
I missed a couple of points in my last mail.
Travis Leithead:
My question, once again, is whether WebIDL will define exactly how
to translate the behavior of operators like delete into the
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Garrett Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Cameron McCormack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Garrett.
[snip]
Travis Leithead:
[snip]
Garrett Smith:
[snip]
Document's [[Prototype]] would usually be Function or Object,
Correction:
: Garrett Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 11:20 PM
To: Travis Leithead
Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Allen Wirfs-Brock;
Pratap Lakshman (VJ#SDK)
Subject: Re: [WebIDL] ES3.1 'flexible' attribute and 'delete' semantics
On Tue, Aug 12
Hi Garrett.
Travis Leithead:
My question, once again, is whether WebIDL will define exactly how
to translate the behavior of operators like delete into the
JavaScript language binding for DOM objects.
Garrett Smith:
That isn't a question. This is: Why does WebIDL need to define how
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Maciej Stachowiak [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 14, 2008, at 6:10 PM, Garrett Smith wrote:
Document interface is an interface. An interface does not have defined
implementation; it is merely a contract. IDL is for Interface
Definition.
The fact that
Cameron,
I recently became aware of Microsoft's involvement in the ECMAScript 3.1 effort
as of about a month ago. (Including Allen Pratap from MS Jscript, who are
driving that effort.) ES3.1 makes a few subtle changes that I thought you'd
like to follow up on, since they impact the WebIDL
