W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > July to September 2009

Fwd: Web IDL Garden Hose

From: Mark S. Miller <erights@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:13:42 -0700
Message-ID: <4d2fac900909290813n77145600rf6a6686c7dbf7170@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Forwarded conversation
Subject: Re: Web IDL Garden Hose
------------------------
[...]

----------
From: *Maciej Stachowiak* <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:22 PM
To: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>
Cc: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>,
public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <
erights@google.com>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>


Defining the Web IDL syntax without defining any language bindings would not
be very useful:

1) The syntax is to a large extent designed around being able to express the
right behavior for language bindings, particularly ECMAScript bindings. So
we can't really lock it down without knowing that it can express the needed
behavior in the bindings, which requires the bindings to be done.

2) To actually implement any spec using Web IDL, implementors need at least
one language binding, and most implementors will consider an ECMAScript
binding to be essential. Without the bindings being defined, it will not be
possible to build sound test suites for the specs using Web IDL.

3) The whole point of Web IDL was to define how DOM and related Web APIs map
to languages, and especially ECMAScript. Previous specs used OMG IDL where
the mapping was not formally defined, and implementors had to read between
the lines. Removing language bindings from Web IDL would return us to the
same bad old state, thus missing the point of doing Web IDL in the first
place.

Regards,
Maciej


----------
From: *Yehuda Katz* <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:34 PM
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, public-webapps WG <
public-webapps@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, es-discuss <
es-discuss@mozilla.org>


It would be pretty nice if the language bindings of WebIDL were
available in pure ES, where possible. To some degree, that is not
currently possible (in ES3), but it will be a lot better in ES5. I
think it might actually be possible to get a large degree of
completion just using the JavaScript available in Spidermonkey.

This might also be a useful step in the direction that I was hoping
for in some earlier postings.

-- Yehuda
--
Yehuda Katz
Developer | Engine Yard
(ph) 718.877.1325

----------
From: *Maciej Stachowiak* <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:28 AM
To: Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, public-webapps WG <
public-webapps@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, es-discuss <
es-discuss@mozilla.org>


What do you mean by "available"? A lot of Web IDL interfaces are actually
implementable in ES5 (at least the interface part - not necessarily the
underlying functionality without relying on APIs outside the language).
Using ES5 as the reference baseline would help make this more clear perhaps.

 - Maciej

----------
From: *Yehuda Katz* <wycats@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Cc: Allen Wirfs-Brock <Allen.Wirfs-Brock@microsoft.com>, public-webapps WG <
public-webapps@w3.org>, "Mark S. Miller" <erights@google.com>, es-discuss <
es-discuss@mozilla.org>


I meant "actually written". Being able to see actual code that implemented
pieces of the IDL in ES would make some of the more complex interactions
more obvious (I suspect).
-- Yehuda




-- 
   Cheers,
   --MarkM
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 15:14:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:30:02 UTC