On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote:

> There's no experiment that you can run using web content to detect
> whether we implement WebIDL.  All you can detect is whether we
> implement particular specifications that use WebIDL.  We can just
> simply not implement the specifications that require COM-like
> implementations and we can continue to lead a happy life.

Speaking of implementing WebIDL (in the context of a spec that normatively
requires its support, e.g., CSSOM), what is your position on whether WK
will/should support the following? In the test at [1], neither of these are
currently supported, or at least don't yield expected results.

WebIDL 4.4.1 [2] states:

The interface object for a given non-callback
interface<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-interface> is
a function object<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#dfn-function-object>

WebIDL 4.4.3 [3] states:

If the 
attribute was not specified on the interface, then the interface prototype
object must also have a property named “constructor” with attributes
{ [[Writable]]:true, [[Enumerable]]: false, [[Configurable]]: true } whose
value is a reference to the interface object for the interface.

[2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#interface-object
[3] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#interface-prototype-object

webkit-dev mailing list

Reply via email to