21591 2013-04-05 12:13:28 +0000 String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL 2013-07-09 20:28:36 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WebAppsWG WebIDL unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#client-identification [v1] P3 normal --- 22041 1 contributor cam annevk brendan cam ian mike Ms2ger public-script-coord robin zcorpan public-webapps-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 85599 0 contributor 2013-04-05 12:13:28 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/timers.html Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#client-identification Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#client-identification Comment: String constant on NavigatorID is invalid per WebIDL Posted from: 81.242.195.27 by ms2ger@gmail.com User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:22.0) Gecko/20130301 Firefox/22.0 85600 1 Ms2ger 2013-04-05 12:14:48 +0000 Either make it a simple readonly attribute or make Cameron allow it, I guess. 85988 2 ian 2013-04-11 22:23:58 +0000 heycam, let's allow it! :-D This relates to the last interesting line of this IDL block: [NoInterfaceObject] interface NavigatorID { readonly attribute DOMString appName; readonly attribute DOMString appVersion; readonly attribute DOMString platform; readonly attribute DOMString userAgent; const DOMString product = "Gecko"; // for historical reasons }; 86006 3 zcorpan 2013-04-11 23:05:06 +0000 Constants appear on both the interface object and on the prototype. In this case, there's no interface object because of [NoInterfaceObject], but it still seems wrong conceptually to use a constant for .product. 86016 4 ian 2013-04-12 06:49:20 +0000 If there was some WebIDL way of defining an attribute that always returned a single value but didn't appear on the prototype, that would be even better. I agree that the type of constant that appears on the interface isn't what I'm looking for here. 86020 5 brendan 2013-04-12 07:16:05 +0000 static const DOMString product = "Gecko"; // for historical reasons ? /be 86021 6 cam 2013-04-12 07:23:13 +0000 static attributes already exist, if you were happy to to do the 'Return "Gecko".` bit in prose. Otherwise static const seems reasonable to me. And probably preferable, since it would result in a data property rather than an accessor property. I don't understand the objection to use a constant if the value is indeed constant, by the way. 86022 7 zcorpan 2013-04-12 07:34:45 +0000 The attribute should only be on the prototype, not on the interface object. static does the opposite. I think what is requested here is the equivalent of [[ interface Foo { readonly attribute DOMString product; }; The `product` attribute must return the string "Gecko". ]] Since this is a legacy feature, I'm not convinced WebIDL should support dedicated syntax for it. 86242 8 ian 2013-04-15 22:00:47 +0000 Yeah I'm just trying to avoid having prose for this legacy feature, the same way that people keep having me avoid prose where I can avoid it by using other features like defaults for optional arguments, enums, etc. :-) heycam: If you don't want to support this, just reassign it to me and I'll use prose. 90343 9 annevk 2013-07-04 08:23:02 +0000 I understand the desire to avoid writing prose, but I don't understand why we'd want string constants in IDL. 90513 10 ian 2013-07-09 20:26:28 +0000 FYI, I don't need this for HTML anymore. I made it all prose. 90515 11 annevk 2013-07-09 20:28:36 +0000 WONTFIX since nobody came up with a compelling use case.