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 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:25:37 UTC