15931 2012-02-07 20:26:32 +0000 WebIDL snippets need updating 2012-03-15 17:58:22 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified CSS Regions unspecified All All RESOLVED FIXED cssom P2 normal --- 1 Ms2ger vhardy eoconnor mihnea public-css-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 63858 0 Ms2ger 2012-02-07 20:26:32 +0000 There are various bugs in the WebIDL blocks: > [Supplemental] interface Document { > NamedFlow getFlowByName(DOMString name); > NamedFlowCollection getNamedFlows(); > }; '[Supplemental]' should be 'partial'. > interface NamedFlowCollection { > readonly attribute unsigned long length; > caller getter NamedFlow item (in unsigned long index); > } Trailing semicolon is missing. 'caller' should not be used, as it should only be used for legacy features (document.all). See <http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-legacy-callers>. The specification does not list the 'supported property indices', as required by the WebIDL specification (<http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/#idl-indexed-properties>). Furthermore, as item() can return null, the return type must be 'NamedFlow?', including the question mark. 'in' is also no longer supported. > [Supplemental] interface Element { > readonly attribute DOMString regionOverflow; > getter Range[] getRegionFlowRanges(); > }; Again, 'partial'. 'getter's must take exactly one argument (either unsigned long or DOMString). In fact, this should probably be | readonly attribute Range[] regionFlowRanges; as there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use a function. Finally, a normative reference to the WebIDL specification is missing, which strictly speaking means that these snippets are meaningless. 65589 1 vhardy 2012-03-15 01:40:54 +0000 Implemented the requested changes in: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/diff/bde8090375d0/css3-regions/Overview.src.html The only difference is for regionFlowRanges which I re-specified as: sequence<Range>getRegionFlowRanges() Because this is meant to return a new array instance on each call and it is not meant to be a live list. I'll close this after 48h if you (Ms2ger) have no objection. Thanks! 65611 2 Ms2ger 2012-03-15 17:37:47 +0000 Looks good, thanks. 65613 3 vhardy 2012-03-15 17:58:22 +0000 Thanks for the review. Closing the bug now.