2009/7/13 Cameron McCormack :
> Cameron McCormack:
>> > * Entries in a dictionary interface that don’t correspond to the
>> > attributes declared on them are also exposed as properties on the
>> > host object in ES, and are enumerable (unlike corresponding named
>> > properties for re
Hi Cameron,
2009/7/13 Cameron McCormack :
> Cameron McCormack:
>> > Do you need to specify that some of the optional attributes are
>> > enumerable while others aren’t? Or should all of the optional
>> > attributes be enumerable?
>
> Anselm R Garbe:
>> We only need to specify that all (optional)
Cameron McCormack:
> > * Entries in a dictionary interface that don’t correspond to the
> > attributes declared on them are also exposed as properties on the
> > host object in ES, and are enumerable (unlike corresponding named
> > properties for regular interfaces).
Ian Hickson:
> C
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009, Cameron McCormack wrote:
>
> * Entries in a dictionary interface that don’t correspond to the
> attributes declared on them are also exposed as properties on the
> host object in ES, and are enumerable (unlike corresponding named
> properties for regular interfac
Cameron McCormack:
> > Do you need to specify that some of the optional attributes are
> > enumerable while others aren’t? Or should all of the optional
> > attributes be enumerable?
Anselm R Garbe:
> We only need to specify that all (optional) attributes are enumerable,
> so basically that means
Hi Camron,
2009/7/10 Cameron McCormack :
> Anselm R Garbe:
>> Ok, another OT question: what is the reason behind the Java binding
>> focus of WebIDL?
>> I mean at least my primary focus is using WebIDL to express JS API
>> interfaces, and currently WebIDL is limited by Java restrictions in
>> that
Hi Anselm.
Anselm R Garbe:
> Ok, another OT question: what is the reason behind the Java binding
> focus of WebIDL?
> I mean at least my primary focus is using WebIDL to express JS API
> interfaces, and currently WebIDL is limited by Java restrictions in
> that respect...
DOM specifications have
Hi Cameron,
2009/7/3 Cameron McCormack :
> Cameron McCormack:
>> (OT: Btw. why is WebIDL using the attribute keyword instead of the
>> property keyword if the terminology calls it property?)
>
> They are different things. “Named properties” are name-value pairs that
> are exposed on an object thr
Hi Anselm.
Cameron McCormack:
> > I think you should define this instead using named properties. It
> > doesn’t seem to be useful to define an interface that has attributes
> > with particular names and types if they might not exist at all (or might
> > exist but be different types).
Anselm R Ga
Hi Cameron,
2009/7/2 Cameron McCormack :
> Anselm R Garbe:
>> For example, we are using a Map-like object that exposes file metadata
>> which differs among different files (eg an MP3 file has totally
>> different metadata than an executable), but the metadata might also
>> contain commonly used at
Hi Anselm.
Anselm R Garbe:
> For example, we are using a Map-like object that exposes file metadata
> which differs among different files (eg an MP3 file has totally
> different metadata than an executable), but the metadata might also
> contain commonly used attributes like the file size or creat
Hi there,
in a mail[1] earlier today, Marcin introduced some ideas we discussed
recently on the BONDI interfaces list. I noticed in the archives that
you had a related discussion about the geolocation PositionOptions and
also some conclusions like using the [Callback] attribute. As it has
been men
12 matches
Mail list logo
