This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The extended attribute list syntax used in the File API does not adhere to current WebIDL specification syntax. In particular, production 64 of the syntax [1] must consist of a comma separated list of ExtendedAttribute items. [1] http://heycam.github.io/webidl/#proddef-ExtendedAttributeList In order to fix this, please make the following changes: (1) on definition of Blob interface, change [Exposed=Window,Worker][Constructor, Constructor(sequence<(ArrayBuffer or ArrayBufferView or Blob or DOMString)> blobParts, optional BlobPropertyBag options)] to [Constructor, Constructor(sequence<(ArrayBuffer or ArrayBufferView or Blob or DOMString)> blobParts, optional BlobPropertyBag options), Exposed=Window,Worker] (2) on definition of File interface, change [Exposed=Window,Worker][Constructor(sequence<(Blob or DOMString or ArrayBufferView or ArrayBuffer)> fileBits, [EnsureUTF16] DOMString fileName, optional FilePropertyBag options)] to [Constructor(sequence<(Blob or DOMString or ArrayBufferView or ArrayBuffer)> fileBits, [EnsureUTF16] DOMString fileName, optional FilePropertyBag options), Exposed=Window,Worker] (3) on definition of FileReader interface, change [Exposed=Window,Worker][Constructor] to [Constructor, Exposed=Window,Worker] (4) on definition of FileReaderSync interface, change [Exposed=Worker][Constructor] to [Constructor, Exposed=Worker] Note that I have also reordered the Exposed extended attribute above to improve readability (given that it can contain a ',' as well).
Note that the syntax of Exposed will likely change, since the current one can't be parsed unambiguously.
(In reply to Boris Zbarsky from comment #1) > Note that the syntax of Exposed will likely change, since the current one > can't be parsed unambiguously. bzbarsky, will it change in a way that's very different than the suggested correct syntax in the bug report by Glenn Adams? I admit I read WebIDL wrong, and created two sets of square brackets, one for extended attribute annotations and one for constructor. Should I leave this be till WebIDL decides on the correct syntax?
> will it change in a way that's very different than the suggested correct syntax > in the bug report by Glenn Adams Unclear. For now you should use what Glenn suggested, in any case.
Fixed. 1. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-Blob 2. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-file 3. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#dfn-filereader 4. http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/FileAPI/#readingOnThreads
Thanks.