Keep running into issues where browser engineers write spec IDL that violates the IDL spec in whatever ways their binding implementation does not enforce. If we're lucky a second implementor, with a binding implementation with different holes, tries to implement before it ships
-
-
Not correct, I'm happy to catch obvious local errors. I don't want *strict* compliance with grammar, such that, say, unknown extended attributes cause parsing errors, but am open to getting stricter in general.
-
Great. I can certainly file the issues I run into.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The WebIDL parser is nullipotent so accepts and preserves anything, but it should be flagging all the syntax errors at the least. There are a few other validity checks and more can be added. Please file issues with specifics of what you’d like checked. https://github.com/plinss/widlparser …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.