On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Glenn Adams <gl...@skynav.com> wrote:
> 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 is a function
> object.
>
> WebIDL 4.4.3 [3] states:
>
> If the [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.
I don't have a strong opinion on those topics. I'm happy to review
patches in this area.
Adam
_______________________________________________
webkit-dev mailing list
webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org
http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
