This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 16353 - Use udpated WebIDL syntax
Summary: Use udpated WebIDL syntax
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WebAppsWG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: HISTORICAL - DOM3 Events (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Travis Leithead [MSFT]
QA Contact: public-webapps-bugzilla
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: LC, reviewerSatisfied
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-03-13 23:37 UTC by Travis Leithead [MSFT]
Modified: 2012-05-04 17:08 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2012-03-13 23:37:38 UTC 
[PORTING to bug]

Hi Doug, Jacob

The DOM 3 Events specification includes WebIDL code in non-normative 
appendices, but the syntax used is obsolete. In particular, it uses 
'[Supplemental] interface', which was replaced with 'partial interface' 
and the 'in' and 'raises' keywords.

Also, it seems that the specification does not use the 'Foo?' syntax for 
nullable types, and it has rather peculiar indentation.

Please update the draft accordingly.

Thanks
Ms2ger
Comment 1 Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2012-03-13 23:39:36 UTC 
The WebIDL syntax used in this spec was updated in the last revision of DOM3 Events. It should be congruent with the DOM4 syntax (except no event contstructors, of course).
Comment 2 Ms2ger 2012-03-14 10:16:42 UTC 
Thank you, the spec looks good now.
Comment 3 Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2012-03-15 22:37:11 UTC 
Verified by opener. Thanks!
Comment 4 Philippe Le Hegaret 2012-05-04 16:54:15 UTC 
One last mistake to fix in order to match WebIDL:

[[
 readonly attribute any? detail;
]]
any doesn't seem to accept "?".
Comment 5 Travis Leithead [MSFT] 2012-05-04 17:08:36 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> One last mistake to fix in order to match WebIDL:
> 
> [[
>  readonly attribute any? detail;
> ]]
> any doesn't seem to accept "?".

Fixed. Thanks for the catch.