On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:09 AM, Antti Koivisto <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <[email protected]>wrote: > >> No, it's just a refactoring on the CSS side, so we don't have to >> repeat a bunch of stuff every time we have an at-rule that contains >> other rules. It just makes the WebIDL easier and less error-prone. >> > > It seems bit strange to add a web-exposed type if it is just a spec > writing helper. Each new type has non-zero cost (code size of generated > bindings etc). > > Internally it obviously makes sense to share code, I'm just wondering why > we would want to expose this via API. > > It means you can add methods to the prototype across all the types, and you can override methods across the types per the way they're described in IDL. It also provides instanceof for type checking in JS. If we're not going to expose it and be spec compliant then perhaps we should take that up with the spec as an objection and see if they're willing to use a NoInterfaceObject instead. - E
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
