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 [NoInterfaceObject]<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#NoInterfaceObject> extended 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. [1] http://hg.csswg.org/test/raw-file/3d8f9c12b1c8/contributors/gadams/incoming/cssom/cssstylerule-interface.xht [2] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#interface-object [3] http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#interface-prototype-object Regards, Glenn
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
