On Dec 21, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Elliott Sprehn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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. Prototype hacking the CSSOM and instanceof-based dynamic type checking of the CSSOM are both pretty improbable use cases. > > 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. I think you would probably also want it to be a supplemental interface to achieve the desired effect, if going this route. Regards, Maciej
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
