| 05:57 | <annevk> | Yeah, was should use "context object" |
| 05:57 | <annevk> | Well, really IDL should define "context object" as "this" |
| 08:06 | <botie> | heycam|away, at 2016-05-10 15:52 UTC, halindrome said: ping me about webidl and sequences |
| 14:05 | <Domenic> | I prefer "this"... "context object" was very confusing to me the first 100 times I saw it |
| 15:53 | <annevk> | Domenic: yeah, if IDL doesn't adopt it fast I think I'll change context object in DOM to "this" |
| 17:27 | <jyasskin> | HTML currently recommends the relevant settings object when 'this' exists, or the current settings object otherwise. If we write `this's relevant settings object` in places that aren't directly inside a method or attribute definition (e.g. the default in https://w3c.github.io/permissions/#permission-state), sometimes they'll be used from a constructor or |
| 17:27 | <jyasskin> | another place that `this` doesn't exist. Should we define a fallback to 'current' in that case? |
| 20:13 | <Domenic> | jyasskin: I don't quite understand the question. You can't write `this's relevant settings object` in places that aren't directly inside a method or attribute definition. |
| 20:14 | <Domenic> | jyasskin: in general for situations like permission state I think the settings object should be mandatory |