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

Re: WebIDL: how to address the various audiences and constraints?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:20:39 -0700
Message-ID: <4AC25E07.7080108@w3.org>
To: public-script-coord@w3.org
Hi, Folks-

(moved to public-script-coord)

Has anyone yet floated the suggestion to simply keep a single spec, and 
define the IDL in terms of both ES3 (where and as far as possible), and 
ES5 for future and developing implementations?

Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs


Robin Berjon wrote (on 9/28/09 5:51 AM):
> Hi Art,
>
> On Sep 28, 2009, at 14:40 , Arthur Barstow wrote:
>> I am wondering out loud here if it would make sense to split up the
>> Web IDL spec? For example, a functional split e.g. the IDL in one doc,
>> ES 3/5 bindings in a separate doc, Java bindings in a separate doc,
>> etc. Or a core/non-core (e.g. L1/L2) split (I think Maciej used the
>> term "simplification" in one of his emails). Perhaps there is some
>> other split that would be useful.
>>
>> OTOH, splitting specs can create other problems such as synching the
>> specs, increased overhead for the Editor(s), communication (at least 3
>> WGs plus TC 39), etc.
>
> As I've stated before, I'm in favour of releasing a v1 that only
> contains the basic stuff that we think is solid. That being said
> reorganisation shouldn't be done at the expense of timeliness but rather
> only if it serves it. For process reasons (and also because it's better
> that way) we need some form of WebIDL that other specifications can
> refer to sooner rather than later.
>
> To put this another way, I think that the only thing that can be
> construed as broken with the way which the current WebIDL is developed
> is the time it takes (and this is certainly not Cameron's fault, if you
> have only one editor who can only dedicate so much of his time one can't
> expect miracles no matter how cool or Australian he may be). So while I
> do like the idea of simplifying and orthogonalising, I'd rather it were
> only done where it helps (or doesn't hurt) timely delivery.
>
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 19:20:54 UTC

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