Update WebIDL definition(s) to use new mixin syntax

[tobie]

Hi all!

WebIDL recently introduced dedicated syntax for mixins.

This syntax replaces the [NoInterfaceObject] extended attribute and implements statement which have been deprecated (except for a few legacy uses cases explicitely mentioned in the spec).

You can read more about it here.

In most cases, the changes should be relatively straightforward. The now deprecated:

interface Foo { };

[NoInterfaceObject]  // (Mostly) DEPRECATED
interface Bar { };
Foo implementes Bar; // DEPRECATED

should just be rewritten as:

interface Foo { };

interface mixin Bar { };
Foo includes Bar;

Additonaly, a section on when to use partials and mixins has been added to the spec. It's short and might be worth a read.

It seems the following interfaces in the Media Capture and Streams spec are impacted by this change:

• NavigatorUserMedia

We're sorry for the inconvenience this causes, but our hope is that this ultimately makes things simpler and clearer for everybody.

As always, please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

Thanks!

---

Tracked in: whatwg/webidl#472 | Original pull-request: whatwg/webidl#433

[alvestrand]

From the advice section at https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#using-mixins-and-partials it seems that we should just say

partial interface Navigator {
    [SameObject]
    readonly attribute MediaDevices mediaDevices;
};

and leave it at that. This popularizes the idea of using "partial" across several specifications; is this a desirable evolution of "partial"?

[tobie]

This popularizes the idea of using "partial" across several specifications; is this a desirable evolution of "partial"?

I think that's one of its main purpose. That said you're free to put everything in a mixin and include that, if it makes more sense for your particular use case.

[marcoscaceres]

Seems this was fixed by #509 - could this issue be closed?

[jan-ivar]

I believe so. @tobie can you close it? - I don't have the power to apparently.