Closed chong-z closed 7 years ago
Also, can we change
"sequence getTargetRanges();" => "sequence<StaticRange> getTargetRanges();"
Do you mean to partially reverse the commit @foolip suggested in https://github.com/w3c/input-events/issues/46 ?
I read up on the webidl syntax once, wrote the webidl code for the spec, and was told a little later that I should be basing everything off an unstable development version of webidl instead. After that I tried to forget all about it. If we are going to have serious discussions about the webidl part, I'll read up on it again. But if there is no political disagreement here, and it's just a matter of @choniong and @foolip agreeing on the best way of expressing it, I would suggest the two of you to come up with a common proposal, and we can merge that.
Sorry for the trouble but I don't see any disagreements here and I'm not reversing the commit. @foolip can you help verify if my PR meets the syntax? Thanks!
Sorry, this was likely my mistake. I believe I partially misread @foolip's comment. The < > should never have been gone. As for the second part, yes, please verify.
Commented a bit on https://github.com/w3c/input-events/issues/48, nothing wrong with the syntax though.
was told a little later that I should be basing everything off an unstable development version of webidl instead
This is just true for every well maintained part of the web platform. Things evolve all the time, and those things that are no longer being updated are usually a problem area, not stable foundations to build on.
Since
InputEvent
has methodgetTargetRanges()
, it would be reasonable to addto
InputEventInit
.Also, can we change