W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: WebIDL

From: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:43:46 -0700
Message-ID: <245fb4700909252343k6a2f68bftb79382130c61a606@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, public-webapps@w3.org, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I did not single out Replaceable in my efforts to understand.
>
> Sure, but it is certainly odd and I wanted to recount some of the history,
> just so you'd know not to over-attend to it. ;-)

Ha. Maybe it would be worth putting a note in HTML5. "[Replaceable] is
a quirk of history. Do not over-attend to it".

>
> WebIDL comes from OMG IDL, much of the precedent is documented in various
> online sites, CORBA books, etc. It's not all that strange or bad, just a bit
> "'90s big OOP system" in flavor.
>
> To understand it all takes a while, and Maciej allowed as how some of it
> could be cut without harm. Maybe we should start there.

Do we disagree that it is a worthy goal to have a specification that
can be understood without having to take a while? I certainly
understand the utility in using something with precedent like IDL (for
implementors). Perhaps the IDL version could be part of an addendum,
and something with less historical and conceptual baggage be used
inline? Or is that too much work?

>
> /be
>



-- 
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 06:44:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:39:08 UTC