RE: Publishing a new version of the WD

In light of the fact that WebIDL requires strings to be UNICODE, case-insensitivity is a very complex concept, which cannot necessarily be easily implemented in all languages.  Either command names should be case-sensitive, as dictionary keys (i.e., command parameter names) implicitly are, or the spec should explicitly restrict command names to strings composed of U+0021 through U+007E inclusive.

Ross

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael[tm] Smith [mailto:mike@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 12:27 AM
To: Ross Patterson; Simon Stewart; David Burns
Cc: public-browser-tools-testing
Subject: Re: Publishing a new version of the WD

Ross Patterson <rpatterson@parature.com>, 2012-12-26 11:36 -0600:

> And one independent question: is there a published definition of the 
> IDL that the spec is using?

  http://dev.w3.org/2006/webapi/WebIDL/

Simon and David: The spec should list WebIDL as a normative reference in the References section. You can do that by adding something like one of the following paragraphs to the Conformance Requirements section:

  The IDL fragments in this specification must be interpreted as required
  for conforming IDL fragments, as described in the Web IDL specification
  [[!WEBIDL]].

    -or-

  Implementations that use ECMAScript to implement the APIs defined in
  this specification must implement them in a manner consistent with the
  ECMAScript Bindings defined in the Web IDL specification [[!WEBIDL]],
  as this specification uses that specification and terminology.

--
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike

Received on Friday, 28 December 2012 19:47:09 UTC