Partial interface [1] was added for the 12 July 2011 – LCWD. It was
designed to replace "Supplemental" [2]. I think the beginning of it
was in a thread on public-script-coord [3].
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/#dfn-partial-interface
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-WebIDL-20101021/#es-extended-a
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
>
> The HTMLDocument interface object is current (at least in FF, and per
> the WebIDL spec) non-enumerable. It doesn't show up in for/in loops on
> the window. If the HTML spec were to add an attribute to the Window
> object to define the HTMLDocumen
On 8/9/11 1:58 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
Possibly. I think an alternative is to make the HTML spec just add all
the members to Document, and then define window.HTMLDocument as
returning the Document interface object. This would make instanceof
and "monkeypa
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
> >
> > Possibly. I think an alternative is to make the HTML spec just add all
> > the members to Document, and then define window.HTMLDocument as
> > returning the Document interface object. This would make instanceof
> > and "monkeypatching" work as to
On 8/9/11 12:53 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
�3.1.1 includes the following:
interface HTMLDocument { ... };
Document implements HTMLDocument;
If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
false:
document instanceof HTMLDocumen
On Tue, 9 Aug 2011, David Flanagan wrote:
>
> �3.1.1 includes the following:
>
> interface HTMLDocument { ... };
> Document implements HTMLDocument;
>
> If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
> false:
>
>document instanceof HTMLDocument
>
> And also that th
On 8/9/11 1:59 PM, David Flanagan wrote:
Yes, that is the case in FF and Chrome, at least. I didn't bring that up
because my intuition is that browsers could make that change (adding
HTMLDocument members to non-HTML documents) without as much web
compatibility impact.
"Maybe". Adding them to S
On 8/9/11 8:53 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/9/11 11:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
I assume that the use of an implements declaration rather than direct
inheritance is done to create a clean boundary between the DOM spec and
the HTML spec.
Or just to reflect Ian's belief that all documents shou
On 8/9/11 11:18 AM, David Flanagan wrote:
I assume that the use of an implements declaration rather than direct
inheritance is done to create a clean boundary between the DOM spec and
the HTML spec.
Or just to reflect Ian's belief that all documents should implement all
document intefaces.
I
§3.1.1 includes the following:
interface HTMLDocument { ... };
Document implements HTMLDocument;
If I'm reading WebIDL correctly, this means that this expression must be
false:
document instanceof HTMLDocument
And also that this code will have no visible effect on the document object:
10 matches
Mail list logo
