W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-script-coord@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: WebIDL plans?

From: Shiki Okasaka <shiki@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 16:42:33 +0900
Message-ID: <2fdcc83a1001242342p76873ffbtb3295b4dfbb9f54a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, Sam Weinig <weinig@apple.com>, public-script-coord <public-script-coord@w3.org>
Hi,

It looks currently it is up to each W3C spec whether it uses 'W3C
Editor’s Draft 30 Sep 2009' or 'W3C Working Draft 19 Dec 2008' in its
IDL definitions. It would be great at least this situation is resolved
very soon.

Although I guess recasting the Web IDL ECMAScript binding to ES5 would
be the biggest issue, I'd like to see the following issues to be
addressed in the draft, too:

* define [Supplemental] in the spec

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0528.html

* remove unnamed getters/setters (these could be better represented by
Web IDL arrays)

  http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item06

* add grammar rules for arrays which are missing in the current draft;
it would look like below as far as I can tell from the examples,

[44] Type ->
    NullableType OptionalBracketsList
    | ScopedName OptionalBracketsList
    | "any" OptionalBracketsList
    | "object" OptionalBracketsList

[62] OptionalBracketsList ->
    BracketsList
    | epsilon

[63] BracketsList ->
    Brackets BracketsList
    | epsilon

[64] Brackets ->
    "[]"

Note having definitions for host array objects would be useful for
specs using binary data, too.
   https://www.khronos.org/webgl/public-mailing-list/archives/1001/msg00149.html

* add ConstType to the grammar; I chatted with Cameron about this before:

[12] Const -> "const" ConstType identifier "=" ConstExpr ";"

[65] ConstType ->
    UnsignedIntegerType
    | BooleanType
    | FloatType
    | ScopedName
    | OctetType

* add a signed 8 bit integer type. It could be a new "byte" type just like,

[47] IntegerType ->
    | "byte"
    | "short"
    | "long" OptionalLong

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-script-coord/2010JanMar/0000.html

----

The following items might need more discussions, but I'd like to see
the resolutions as well:

* multiple inheritance might not be needed

   http://www.w3.org/2009/11/02-webapps-minutes.html#item06

* mixing-in mixins

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0903.html

* define properties (accessors) on interface prototype objects

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2009JulSep/0903.html

* add security extended attributes like DoNotCheckDomainSecurity


Regards,

 - Shiki


On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM, Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com> wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:26 AM, ext Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
>
>> Has there been any progress on defining a publication roadmap for Web
>> IDL? The latest version published in /TR/ dates back from more than a
>> year ago, and a growing number of specifications have a normative
>> dependency on that spec, so it would be good if it could be pushed
>> forward in the Recommendation track.
>
> Our plan of record is for Sam Weinig to be the lead Editor during Cam's
> hiatus.
>
> Sam - what is your publishing plan for Web IDL?
>
> -Art Barstow
Received on Monday, 25 January 2010 07:43:06 UTC

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