> On Jun 10, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Maciej Stachowiak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 PM, Chris Dumez <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 9, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Sam Weinig <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 2, 2017, at 11:32 AM, Ryosuke Niwa <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Chris Dumez <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> No, I do not believe WebKit supports ReflectOnly and this is not standard >>>>> IDL either. >>>>> >>>>> The way to do it in WebKit would be to use a regular DOMString attribute, >>>>> as >>>>> in the specification and implement this logic in the c++ getter for this >>>>> attribute. See HTMLElement::dir() for an example. >>>>> >>>>> We could also consider adding support for something like ReflectOnly in >>>>> our >>>>> bindings generator considering that this seems to be used quite a bit in >>>>> the >>>>> HTML specification and it would decrease code complexity a little. >>>>> I’d actually be in favor of that. >>>> >>>> I'd suggest other names like "ReflectEnum" or even "Reflect<EnumType>" >>>> where EnumType is the name of enum that defines the list of values. >>>> >>>> "ReflectOnly" doesn't tell us on what "only" applies. If I didn't know >>>> the context, it sounds like something that does less work than regular >>>> "Reflect”. >>> >>> >>> I don’t see a good reason to complicate the bindings until this becomes >>> more common place. For now, I would just implement HTMLLinkElement::as() >>> to behave as you want and leave the IDL unannotated, and we can revisit it >>> at a later time. >> >> As I said, this is already used in quite a few places in the HTML spec: >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-dir >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-dir> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-as >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-as> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-referrerpolicy >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-referrerpolicy> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-updateviacache >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-link-updateviacache> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-a-referrerpolicy >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-a-referrerpolicy> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-img-referrerpolicy >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-img-referrerpolicy> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-iframe-referrerpolicy >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-iframe-referrerpolicy> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-track-kind >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-track-kind> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-media-preload >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-media-preload> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-area-referrerpolicy >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-area-referrerpolicy> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-th-scope >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-th-scope> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-form-autocomplete >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-form-autocomplete> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-input-type >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-input-type> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-input-inputmode >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-input-inputmode> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-button-type >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-button-type> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-textarea-inputmode >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-textarea-inputmode> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-method >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-method> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-enctype >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-enctype> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-formenctype >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-formenctype> >> - https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-formmethod >> <https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#dom-fs-formmethod> >> >> Having a per-standard implementation in the bindings would likely be better >> than many potentially non-compliant ones. >
That is quite an imposing list, I rescind my objection. > The HTML spec's name for this concept, "limited to only known values" is > really clear and better than "only" or "enum". I wonder if we could make a > name based on this, such as > > ReflectLimitedToKnownValues > ReflectOnlyKnownValues > ReflectKnownValues > ReflectLimited > > (The last of this might be too vague.) I’d prefer ReflectLimitedToKnownValues. - Sam
_______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo/webkit-dev
