| 01:19 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie, you pinged me yesterday |
| 01:51 | <heycam> | TabAtkins, do you mean like `new Something.OtherThing(…)?`? |
| 01:52 | <heycam> | TabAtkins, hasn't come up so far. but also I think you can just write a static operation and using new on it will just work. |
| 02:31 | <TabAtkins> | heycam: Yes, that's it. |
| 02:32 | <TabAtkins> | heycam: I'm not sure how it would work with a static operation. I could certainly define it to work as a constructor, but the definition of the returned type would presumably still have to be an interface, and thus would appear on the window, right? |
| 02:32 | <heycam> | TabAtkins, oh I see, so you want to have the interface object itself under a different object, not just an additional constructor |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | Well, I suppose it's not important to hide the interface object. |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | The point of putting it under another object is to curb verbosity, is all. |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | But if the "real" interface exists and has a long name, that's irrelevant I suppose. |
| 02:33 | <heycam> | TabAtkins, because you get to use a shorter name? |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | Yeah. |
| 02:33 | <heycam> | new Element.A("blah") |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | Things like the constructors for the css value types in the new om api. |
| 02:33 | <heycam> | that kind of thing? |
| 02:33 | <TabAtkins> | Yup. |
| 02:34 | <heycam> | will all these constructors return an object that inherits from the outer thing on which you're putting the constructor? |
| 02:34 | <TabAtkins> | No. |
| 02:34 | <TabAtkins> | The outer thing will pretty much just be a namespace object. |
| 02:35 | <TabAtkins> | The plan is for a CSS interface, which is like navigator or something - a place to stash CSS-related things so they don't end up on window. |
| 02:35 | <heycam> | I see |
| 02:36 | <heycam> | well if this is a pattern that we want to go forward with I can certainly add something to the spec |
| 02:36 | <TabAtkins> | I guess hold off for now, until we have confirmation that we want to go that way. |
| 02:36 | <TabAtkins> | But provisional acceptance is good. |
| 02:36 | <heycam> | sure. I don't think it's a bad idea. |
| 04:48 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: was going to ask if you had input on the alt thread on whatwg, from an implementor's perspective, and if you knew what hsivonen's opinion was |
| 05:16 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: haven't caught up on replies on that thread yet |
| 05:16 | <MikeSmith> | will read it and see |
| 05:16 | <MikeSmith> | I think hsivonen is supportive of adding that attribute |
| 05:16 | <MikeSmith> | but we've been having discussions about what the validator behavior for it should be |
| 05:17 | <MikeSmith> | e.g., about whether it should cause a once-per-document warning |
| 05:18 | <MikeSmith> | Henri has explained why that would not be any better than emitting an error each time, so I'm trying to figure out some other creative way to deal with it |
| 05:25 | <MikeSmith> | anybody know who's running the OAuth 2.0 show at IETF? |
| 05:53 | <MikeSmith> | so Hixie I read Jukka's message on the alt thread on whatwg and would be happy to reply to any part of that you think I should |
| 05:53 | <MikeSmith> | I don't have anything specific to say in reply to it myself at this poitn |
| 05:53 | <MikeSmith> | *point |
| 05:54 | <MikeSmith> | I think the reply to him from Nils on that one particular question he asked says pretty much what I would have said |
| 06:08 | <MikeSmith> | Hixie: replied on the list |
| 06:08 | <MikeSmith> | if you want me to say more than what I said in that reply, just let me know |
| 06:09 | <MikeSmith> | I expect I can get something implemented in my validator.nu workspace for this over the weekend |
| 06:58 | <Hixie> | MikeSmith: awesome, thanks. reply looks perfect. |
| 06:58 | <MikeSmith> | ¥OK |
| 06:59 | <Hixie> | will look more closely next week after doing the response images thread |
| 06:59 | <Hixie> | (about 25% through that) |
| 06:59 | <Hixie> | nn |
| 14:07 | <Velmont> | timeless: Yeah, that's why I said the biggest blocker :P -- But yes, I haven't investigated why it renders wrong, don't know what bug that is. |
| 14:08 | <Velmont> | timeless: And it's a "next" (aka unstable) release, so it (not being totally evil) won't autoupdate you to that ;-) |