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

Re: Web IDL Garden Hose (was: ECMA TC 39 / W3C HTML and WebApps WG coordination)

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:36:44 -0700
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Brendan Eich <brendan@mozilla.com>, "public-webapps@w3.org" <public-webapps@w3.org>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <20090926223644.GB2515@wok.mcc.id.au>
Allen Wirfs-Brock:
> Every place the WebIDL ECMAScript binding "overrides" an ECMAScript specification
> internal method is a concern as these are special case extensions to the ECMAScript
> semantics.  As language designers we need to understand if these special cases are
> exemplars of general deficiencies in the language that should be addressed.
> 
> In particular  now that ES5 is finished, WebIDL has a richer language to bind to then
> it had with ES3.  We need a WebIDL binding that maximizes use of ES5 capabilities rather
> than inventing non-standard (from an ES perspective) language extensions.

Indeed, much of the custom [[Get]] etc. functionality can be turned into
ES5 meta-object stuff.  A pertinent question is then: should we change
Web IDL to specify an ES5 binding (and not ES3) at this point, given
that specs depending on it want to advance along the Rec track?

-- 
Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Saturday, 26 September 2009 22:37:32 UTC

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